State v. Carey’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably State v. Blackwell (1976), State v. Trudo (1977)
27 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 Berra v. United States · Aetna Life Insurance v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. · 73 Wash. 2d 533 - State v. Dana · State v. Adams · Shover v. Iowa Lutheran Hospital
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This appropriate language appears in State v. Carey, 165 N.W.2d 27, 29 (Iowa 1969): ‘ * * * We have consistently held misconduct with respect to the jury, whether it be by litigant, counsel or officer of the court, will not be grounds for a new trial unless prejudice is shown, * * * [citing authorities]. ‘We are, however, confronted with another equally well-established rule in considering this error — that the jury is to be above suspicion and that any practice which brings its proceedings under suspicion is to be prohibited.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cowman“However, we have held in a number of cases that the mere withdrawal of evidence does not always remove its prejudicial effect. In State v. Brundidge, 118 Iowa 92 , 91 N.W. 920 , 921, we said, `It is true, also, as contended by the state, we have recognized the rule that, where incompetent evidence has been received, its subsequent withdrawal or exclusion by the trial court will ordinarily cure the error. It is, however, a rule which may easily be abused, especially in the trial of a criminal case * * *.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Peterson““We cannot approve the conduct of the county attorney in his cross-examination of defendant. His avowed purpose was to put before the jury by insinuation and innuendo highly damaging facts which he admittedly had no way of properly presenting to them. “This is exactly what the county attorney hoped to accomplish, and he may well have done so, even though the court withdrew the evidence from consideration of the jury.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sallis
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.