State v. White’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 306 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 318 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably State v. Lott (1990), State v. Moreland (1990)
5 federal appellate · 306 state decisions
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · Escobedo v. Illinois · Berger v. United States · Johnson v. State of New Jersey
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 318 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“considered only the relevant, material, and competent evidence in arriving at its judgment unless it affirmatively appears to the contrary.”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage“'Except perhaps where the evidence of the homicide is entirely circumstantial, it is not permissible for the state in the first instance, and before the character of deceased has been assailed, to offer primary evidence or evidence in chief of deceased's good character or reputation as a quiet, peaceable, and law-abiding man.' 40 C.J.S. Homicide s 222, p. 1138. * * * Such evidence is excluded because it is irrelevant and immaterial to the guilt or innocence of the accused and the penalty to be imposed. The principal reason for the prejudicial effect is that it serves to inflame the passion of the jury with evidence collateral to the principal issue at bar.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Beuke · State v. Brown““The use by the state of evidence of the victim’s background, and reliance upon such evidence in its argument for the death penalty, is improper and constitutes error, but while such error may be cause for reversal because of its prejudicial effect on a jury, it must affirmatively appear that in a bench trial the court relied on such testimony in arriving at its verdict in order for such error to be ground for reversal.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sowell · State v. Frazier
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.