Apple v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 95 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Wilhelm v. State (1974), Bryant v. State (1991)
3 federal appellate · 95 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 Alford v. United States · Viereck v. United States · Howard v. Fleming · Dutton v. State · Mitchell v. State
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he question and the proffer were not directed to any food or drink received by the officer who was testifying, but were general in their nature, and could have had no special bearing on the credibility or bias of this particular officer. They were not in any way pertinent to the issue before the jury, and their only purpose could have been to create prejudice against the police force. The range of cross-examination is wide, but it cannot be extended beyond the pertinent issues in the case. It is and must be left largely to the discretion of the trial judge as to the latitude allowed, and unless there is clear error, (which we do not find in this case) the ruling of the lower court will not be disturbed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A judge should at all times be impartial and courteous and should not permit his personal feelings, if he has any, to be exhibited before a jury, but unless there is some clear showing ... that his words or his actions influenced the jury adversely to the appellant, the mere fact that the trial was conducted in an impatient and somewhat peremptory way, does not justify a reversal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[T]he offense [common law assault] is one prescribed by the common law, and there is no limit imposed on the court. . .. The mere fact that in other cases, dissimilar on their facts, different sentences were imposed, is no ground for the conclusion that in the case before us, the sentence was excessive. Each case must be judged upon its own merits. 'Undue leniency in one case does not transform reasonable punishment in another case to a cruel one.’ Howard v. Fleming, 191 U.S. 126 , 24 S.Ct. 49, 50 , 48 L.Ed. 121 , at page 124.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
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.