State v. Osburn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

88 state decisions

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

1. ““In this jurisdiction there can be no question about the status and rights of a defendant in a criminal action where he elects to take the stand as a witness in his own defense. When he does so he places his character and credibility in issue and, when questioned in good faith, he may be cross-examined with the view of impairing his credibility concerning previous offenses and subjects involving him in degradation and disgrace although they do not pertain to the charge for which he is then on trial. More than that the extent of the cross-examination touching his credibility is a matter which rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and rulings with respect thereto will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that discretion has been abused. Our early decisions establish the foregoing principles beyond all peradventure of doubt but we need not burden this opinion by their citation. They are referred to and relied on in our more recent decisions of State v. Pfeifer, 143 Kan. 536 , 56 P. 2d 442 and City of Wichita v. Hibbs, 158 Kan. 185 , 146 P. 2d 397 , which reiterate and adhere to such prinpicles as there and here announced. “Appellant does not seem to question the principles of law heretofore announced so much as he does their application. In an attempt to avoid their force and effect he relies on three propositions. First he contends that for purposes of testing his credibility a defendant cannot be interrogated on cross-examination respecting prior arres”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Vernon King

2. ““It is the function of the jury, not that of the court of appellate review, to weigh the evidence and pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and, if there is substantial competent evidence to support it a verdict will not be disturbed on grounds it is based on insufficient evidence or is contrary to the evidence.” (Syl. f 1.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Gregory

3. ““Neither can it be said, as appellant suggests, that the evidence is insufficient simply because the verdict with respect to the identity of an accused, is based upon the testimony of a single witness. . . .” (p. 332.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Wade