Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 19 COLO 441 - Nesbit v. People

Nesbit v. People’s Empirical Analysis

1894

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
16
states following
September 1969
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 1969 · most notably Kadderly v. Portland (1903), People ex rel. Elder v. Sours (1903)

2 federal appellate · 32 state decisions — followed in 16 states

8018941900191019201930194019501960decided

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 Town of South Ottawa v. Perkins · Collier v. Frierson · Gottlieb v. Hartman · In re Roberts · In re Dolph

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

  1. ““ The testimony of Doctor Eskridge was further objected to on the ground that his consultation with the accused was professional and confidential, and that any communication made by the accused, and any information gained by the physician in the course of such consultation, were privileged, and could not be divulged without the consent of his patient, the defendant. This ground of objection is not sustained by' the record. The consultation was mutual, ^not confidential. It was not secured by the accused in his own behalf and for his own sake alone. It was agreed to between the prosecution and the defendant for the express purpose of enabling the physician to testify as to defendant’s mental condition. It cannot be that defendant could seek and obtain such an examination at the hands of the court, and with the consent of the prosecution, with the privilege of introducing the testimony if the result of the examination should be favorable to him, and yet reserve to himself the power of excluding the testimony if it should be unfavorable. The objection to the admissibility of the testimony was properly overruled. Its weight was for the jury, to be considered in connection with other testimony upon the same subject.””
    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.