Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 152 Neb. 113 - Latham v. State

Latham v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
2
states following
August 2001
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 2001 · most notably State v. Olsan (1989), Griffith v. State (1953)

35 state decisions

1201949195019601970198019902000decided

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 Kitts v. State · Schluter v. State · Scherz v. Platte Valley Public Power & Irrigation District · Swogger v. State · Bosteder v. Duling

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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The defendant on cross-examination was asked about matters collateral and immaterial to the issues in the case, and the State was permitted to introduce evidence to disprove what the defendant had said the facts were. This was improper procedure. The apparent purpose of such questions by the State was to lay a foundation for an impeachment argument to the jury based upon false testimony with respect to immaterial matters to prove the defendant unworthy of belief in other matters testified to by him vital to his liberty. When a witness is cross-examined on a matter collateral to the issue, he cannot as to his answer be subsequently contradicted by the party putting the question.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The purpose of the restricted inquiry permitted [on proper cross-examination of a defendant] is for whatever effect the fact of a previous conviction may have on the credibility of the defendant as a witness, and not for the purpose of tending to show that he is prone to engage in criminal actions.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.