State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently March 1994 · most notably State v. Hobson (1983), State v. Ralls (1973)
2 federal appellate · 50 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 Terry v. Ohio · Aguilar v. Texas · United States v. Ventresca · Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden · Cree v. Goldstein
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . It is well settled that prior inconsistent statements made by a witness out of court may be shown to impair his credibility. (State v. Donahue, 197 Kan. 317 , 416 P. 2d 287 .) The rule is stated in State v. Sorter, 52 Kan. 531 , 34 Pac. 1036 , where it was held: “ ‘While ordinarily a party may not impeach his own witnesses, nor offer evidence for that purpose, he is not conclusively bound by the statements which the witness may make; and where a party has been entrapped or deceived by an artful or hostile witness, he may examine such witness as to whether he had not previously made contrary statements; and may, in the discretion of the court, be permitted to show what such contrary statements were.’ (Syl. ¶ 5.) “Cases which have followed Sorter are State v. Hamilton, 74 Kan. 461 , 87 Pac. 363 ; State v. Terry, 98 Kan. 796 , 161 Pac. 905 ; State v. Cole, 136 Kan. 381 , 15 P. 2d 452 ; State v. Olthoff, 141 Kan. 70 , 40 P. 2d 384 , and State v. Barnes, 164 Kan. 424 , 190 P. 2d 193 . The state had a right to reply on Mrs. Hopson’s prior statements under oath, and her deviation therefrom during the course of the trial left the state with no alternative but to impeach her by the use of her prior inconsistent statement. (K. S. A. 60-422 [a].)””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Ford · State v. Potts““[T]here are no time limitations on the use of the inquisition process, and that the investigatory powers of the state do not end with the conclusion of a preliminary hearing.””
2 later decisions 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.