Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 205 Kan. 47 - State v. Potts

State v. Potts’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
2
states following
March 2001
most recently cited

43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently March 2001 · most notably State v. Wilkins (1974), State v. Rice (1997)

43 state decisions

2201970198019902000decided

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 Pointer v. Texas · Holler v. W. S. Dickey Clay Manufacturing Co. · State v. Gauger · State v. Donahue · State v. Jones

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

  1. ““ ‘In summing up a case before a jury, counsel may not introduce or comment on facts outside the evidence, but reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence and considerable latitude is allowed in the discussion of it in which he may use illustrations and appeal to the jury with all the power and persuasiveness which his learning, skill and experience enable him to use.’ ””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It is the rule in this state that where it appears a party is genuinely surprised by adverse testimony from his own witness, the trial court may, in its discretion, allow the party calling the witness to cross-examine and to interrogate him as to prior contradictory statements. A party may impeach his own witness to such an extent. K. S. A. 60-422 grants impeachment privileges to a party calling the witness. In case of surprise the state has long been granted the privilege of impeaching its own witness. . . .””
    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.