Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2 COLO 48 - Solander v. People

Solander v. People’s Empirical Analysis

1873

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
12
states following
August 1984
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently August 1984 · most notably United States v. Clara Holte (1915), People v. Buffum (1953)

1 federal appellate · 44 state decisions — followed in 12 states

90187318801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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. Howard · Dunn v. . the People · State v. Howard · Bartlett v. Hoyt · The People v. . Dyle

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

  1. ““It is plain that the petitioner must now set forth in his petition the ground upon which the venue may be changed, as, that the judge or the inhabitants of the county are prejudiced against him, and also the facts which lead to the belief that such ground exists. Affidavits may be filed to show the truth of these facts, and if the ground upon which the change is asked sufficiently appears, the prayer of the petitioner will be granted; otherwise it should be denied.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In the case of a challenge to the favor, the fact being ascertained, the matter of indifferency was still to be determined by the triers, or by the court acting in the place of triers. In one case the law declared the juror to be incompetent, when the fact was found to exist; in the other the fact was evidence of bias or favor, upon which the triers or the court must determine whether the juror was indifferent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The instruction asked as to the weight to be given to circumstantial evidence was correct in form and principle, and might have been given with propriety. But as it relates simply to the weight of evidence, and the jury were correctly advised as to the doctrine of reasonable doubt, the refusal of this instruction cannot be ground for new trial.”
    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.