State v. Potter’s Empirical Analysis
1875
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2013 · most notably Hopt v. People (1881), State v. Oswald (1966)
1 federal appellate · 34 state decisions — followed in 12 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Swartwout v. Michigan Air Line Railroad · O'Donnell v. Segar · Kenworthy v. Williams · People v. Bonney · Townsend v. Doe ex dem. Chapin
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It will be noticed from this review that our statute is not so specific or minute in its restriction upon the action of the court as those of several other states. The language is general, and simply calls for a written charge, and requires it to be filed among the papers.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hobbs · State v. Hathaway““The mere fact that an oral communication has passed from the court to the jury is not of itself proof that the' statute has been disregarded, but the court may properly make oral statements to the jury in reference to the form of the verdict, the manner in which the trial has been conducted, the behavior of the jury or counsel or parties, or any other oral statement which is not fairly and strictly a direction or instruction upon some question or rule of law involved in or applicable to the trial or a comment upon the evidence.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It may be remarked that the purpose of this statute is to secure to the defendant the exact rulings of the court, in order that he may avail himself of any errors in the rulings; that it was not intended to cast any unnecessary burdens upon the court, or to hamper and restrict communications between the court and jury; that it should be so construed as fairly to secure that purpose, and not to he made a mere weapon of technical error.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.