Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 187 Kan. 496 - State v. Jones

State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

1960

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
3
states following
May 2014
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2014

18 state decisions

80196019701980199020002010decided

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. Keehn · State v. Winchester · State v. Streeter · State v. Stubbs · State v. Germany

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

  1. ““The purpose of a trial in a criminal case is to ascertain the truth of the matters charged against the defendant, and it is a part of the business of the trial judge to see that this end is attained. He is a vital and integral factor in the discovery and elucidation of the facts, and whenever in his judgment the attorneys are not accomplishing the full development of the truth it is not only his right but it is his duty to examine and cross-examine the witnesses. The presumption is that this liberty will be honorably and impartially exercised in the interest of justice, and in this case it was not abused by the trial judge.” (Syl. f 4.) (Emphasis supplied.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “. . Misconduct of a juror is in the first instance a question for the trial court and when a motion for new trial is overruled it is thereby determined that the irregularity charged was not prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant. (State v. Lammon, 153 Kan. 822, 826 , 113 P. 2d 1052 .) Defendant fails to show that his substantial rights were so prejudiced by the conduct of this juror that a new trial should be granted.” (pp. 499, 500.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.