Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 198 Kan. 242 - State v. Basker

State v. Basker’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
states following
September 2000
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently September 2000 · most notably State v. Stuart and Jones (1978), State v. Struzik (2000)

2 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

12019671970198019902000decided

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 Allen v. United States · State v. Oswald · State v. Minor · State v. Neff · Pennsylvania ex rel. Master v. Baldi

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

  1. ““While the prosecuting attorney should not endeavor to introduce legally inadmissible evidence, or testimony known to be untrue, he should be allowed full range within the law to bring out all the material evidence he has good reason to believe will shed light on the commission of an alleged offense, and in the absence of bad faith the displaying of an exhibit not thereafter introduced in evidence, or attempting to introduce improper evidence, does not constitute prejudicial misconduct.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It is the duty of a judge to guide the jury in its decision-making process by giving proper instructions. But he must never abuse this office by coercing the jury into making decisions it might not otherwise make.” (p. 247.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[p]etitioner was adequately represented by counsel and there was nothing in the record to sustain the charge of inadequate preparation, poor judgment in the handling of the defense or prejudicial publicity.”
    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.