State v. Sanders’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
2 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 1998 · most notably State v. Edwards (1998), Foster & Forster v. State (1974)
2 district · 24 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 United States v. Wade · Stovall v. Denno · Fay v. Noia · Gilbert v. California · Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Assuming the pre-trial identification of defendant was a critical stage of the proceedings at which counsel should have been present, the record before us clearly establishes the in-court identification of the accused had an independent source established by the cross-examination testimony of the witnesses appearing in the record of the trial. Therefore the determination required in Wade and Gilbert has been made and no further proceedings appear necessary to establish the independent source required of the in-court identifications. The absence of counsel at the pre-trial identification was harmless error. (K. S. A. 60-261.)” (p. 554.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Armstrong““If there is substantial evidence in the record which identifies and connects-the defendant with the crime charged independently of a pre-trial identification, lack of counsel at the pre-trial identification does not violate those canons. of decency and fairness established as part of the fundamental law of the land so as to deny the defendant due process of law.” (Syl. ¶ 3.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Yurk
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.