Russell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1911
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 1997
11 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 Fitzpatrick v. Papa · Dugan v. Anderson
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The general rule is that, if the plaintiff sees fit to call any evidence in anticipation of a defense, he should be required to then produce all of his evidence on that subject, and should not be allowed to split his evidence in two parts, and to give one part in chief and the other in rebuttal. Orderly procedure in the trial would require this. However, the rule is not an arbitrary one, and the trial court is allowed considerable latitude in the exercise of its discretion in that respect. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Alexander““In general, such discretionary variations should be liberally dealt with; for nothing can be more irrational or more unjust than to apply the judicial lash of a new trial to errors of trivial importance.”’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Alexander
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.