State v. Beam’s Empirical Analysis

1954

Citation profile

cited by 42 later decisions

states following

December 2020

most recently cited

42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably State v. Blocker (1973), State v. Mountjoy (1995)

42 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 State v. Osburn · State v. Avery · State v. Wellman · State v. Brown · State v. Ball

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

““. . . There are two short answers to these contentions. The first is that under the confronting circumstances this evidence was properly admitted on rebuttal for the purpose of refuting defendant’s claim. . . . The second is, that under our decisions (see The State v. Gibbs, 105 Kan. 52 , 181 Pac. 569 ; The State v. Abrams, 115 Kan. 520 , 223 Pac. 301 ; The State v. McReynolds, 118 Kan. 356, 360 , 234 Pac. 975 ; State v. Haines, 128 Kan. 475, 477 , 278 Pac. 767 ), the admission of such evidence, even though it be assumed it pertained to the state’s case in chief, did not prevent the defendant from having a fair trial and affords no sound ground for reversal of the judgment. . . .” (1. c. 816, 817.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. State v. Willis · State v. Bean
““The provision of the civil code that, in order to preserve for review a ruling excluding evidence, the evidence must be produced at the hearing of the motion for a new trial, applies as well in criminal cases, inasmuch as the criminal code makes such a ruling, if erroneous, a ground of new trial only by the adoption of the civil procedure in relation thereto.” (Syl. 4.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. City of Topeka v. Burgen

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.