State v. Cippola’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently October 2005 · most notably State v. Grissom (1992), State v. Lackey (2005)
36 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 Cree v. Goldstein · State v. Doyle · State v. Jones · State v. Poulos · State v. McCarther
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The prosecutor is entitled to considerable latitude in arguing the case to a jury. State v. Potts, 205 Kan. 47 , 468 P.2d 78 . There is no prejudicial error where the questionable statements of a prosecuting attorney are provoked and made in response to previous arguments or statements of defense counsel. State v. Magee, 201 Kan. 566 , 441 P.2d 863 ; State v. Cippola, 202 Kan. 624 , 451 P.2d 199 , cert. den. 396 U.S. 967 , 24 L.Ed.2d 432 , 90 S.Ct. 446 .” 219 Kan. at 221.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hanks““. . . [W]e hold that proof beyond the identity of the name therein was not a necessary part of the state’s foundation for their admission in evidence, there being an absence of rebuttal evidence or a denial of identity. . . .” (p. 629.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Moore
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.