Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 20 Beeler 299 - Gentry v. State

Gentry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
states following
May 1986
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 1986 · most notably Turner v. State (1949), Clarke v. State (1966)

35 state decisions

16019471950196019701980decided

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 2 Smith & H. 633 - Keller v. State · Frazier v. State · Lauterbach v. State · Ransom v. State · Southwestern Transp. Co. v. Waters

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

  1. ““(10) The fourteenth assignment is based on the charge that the officers appointed to serve the jury remained in the jury room during the entire deliberation and voting upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant. It is improper for the officers to remain in the jury room, but something more should appear to warrant the Court in finding the plaintiff-in-error entitled to a new trial on that account. There is no charge that the officers communicated with the jury in any way or that they participated to any extent whatever in the deliberation of the jury or did anything further than merely to be present.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It is well settled that a new trial will not be granted upon the ground of newly discovered evidence where it appears that such new evidence can have no other effect than to discredit the testimony of a witness at the original trial, contradict a witnesses statements, or impeach a witness, unless the testimony of the witness who is sought to be impeached was so important to the issue, and the evidence impeaching the witness so strong and convincing, that a different result must necessarily follow.” (emphasis added)”
    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.