State v. Dillon’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1986
6 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 Shover v. Iowa Lutheran Hospital · State v. Harless · Coonley v. Lowden · State v. Ebelsheiser · State v. Miller
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It cannot be seriously disputed here that witnesses could orally describe the condition of the door; the size and characteristics of the tools; and the fact, if it were a fact, that the screwdriver and nail bar [pry bar] fit the marks on the door frame. This is all the pictures did, and they were properly admissible for such purpose. “Defendant objects because the exhibits show the sheriff holding the instruments to illustrate they fit the marks on the door. The fact that the pictures were to this extent posed does not argue against their admissibility. We have held such photographs proper when preliminary questioning shows the objects portrayed are faithfully represented. There was sufficient showing here. State v. Ebelsheiser, 242 Iowa 49, 55, 56 , 43 N.W.2d 706, 710, 711 , 19 A.L.R.2d 865 ; Stiefel v. Wandro, 246 Iowa 807, 817 , 68 N.W.2d 53 , 59 and citations. The admissibility of photographs is within the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be interfered with on appeal except upon a clear showing of an abuse thereof. The trend of authority is to vest more discretion in the trial court in a matter of this kind. Ingebretsen v. Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R. Co., 176 Iowa 74, 82 , 155 N.W. 327 , 330; Coonley v. Lowden, 234 Iowa 731, 743 , 12 N.W.2d 870, 878 ; Shover v. Iowa Lutheran Hospital, 252 Iowa 706, 719 , 107 N.W.2d 85 , 93 and citations.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McClelland
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.