Kennard v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 1999 · most notably Midgett v. State (1960), Haugh v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1991)
3 federal appellate · 22 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 Shaeffer v. Gilbert · Kelly v. State · Hechter v. State · Stout v. State · State v. Payton
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[defendant objected to the return of the verdict as soon as he learned of the separation, and before the verdict was returned, and he thereafter made it the basis of a motion in arrest of judgment. Conceding that the motion in arrest was not appropriate, the written objection of the defendant, taken in connection with the certificate of the trial judge, was sufficient to present the question. [ 177 Md. at 558 , 10 A.2d at 714 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Magwood“mere separation of the jury with the consent of the court after the case has been submitted to them and before their verdict is returned will not of and by itself vitiate the verdict if it is clear.. . that the defendant was not prejudiced....” 4 . Certain protections that ensure a fair trial, such as the right to counsel, attach at the pretrial stage. Those guaranties, however,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Magwood“The purpose of the rule was first to prevent contamination of the jury by extraneous communications and improper influences, and second to coerce a verdict by withholding from the jurors their accustomed comforts and conveniences with the idea of making their confinement so unpleasant and irksome that they would be willing to end it as soon as possible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Magwood
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.