Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 206 Kan. 304 - Zimmer v. State

Zimmer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
5
states following
June 1999
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 1999 · most notably State v. Campbell (1972), State v. Hill (1973)

32 state decisions

300197019801990decided

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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · Bumper v. North Carolina · Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · Hurtado v. People of the State of California · Henry v. Mississippi

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

  1. ““. . . [I]f the judge takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the treatise ... is a reliable authority in the subject.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Mere publication does not ipso facto render a work admissible as independent substantive evidence. Such a work becomes admissible when a proper foundation has been laid — establishment of its reliability either by means of judicial notice being taken or the attestation of an expert witness. . . . We hold the determination of reliability requisite to admission into evidence of learned treatises rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Exclusion of jurors opposed to capital punishment will not be presumed, nor was it shown by evidence adduced at postconviction hearing, to result in an unrepresentative jury on the issue of guilt or to increase the risk of conviction, in violation of constitutional standards.” (Syl. ¶ 1.)”
    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.