State v. Neff’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
2 district · 74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently December 2004 · most notably State v. Brown (1957), State v. Marsh (2004)
2 district · 74 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 Glasser v. United States · Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah · Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co. · Ballard v. United States · Fay v. People of State of New York Bove
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is always desirable that there should be an orderly presentation of proof. Rules pertaining thereto, however, are directory and not mandatory. An alteration in the prescribed customary order of proof rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and the court's ruling will not be disturbed on appeal unless its exercise of discretion is abused." (Syl. ¶ 8.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Where offenses constitute one comprehensive plan, transaction, or one offense is a corollary to the other they may be joined and this is true whether they be of the same general character or not.” (p. 121.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There is a general rule supported by numerous decisions that evidence of the motive of one other than the defendant to commit the crime will be excluded where there is no other proof in the case which tends to connect such other person with die offense with which die defendant is charged. [Citations omitted.]” State v. Neff, 169 Kan. 116, 123 , 218 P.2d 248 , cert. denied 340 U.S. 866 (1950).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Potts · State v. Hooker
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.