State v. Person’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
2 district · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably State v. Joyner (1993), Pet v. Department of Health Services (1994)
2 district · 43 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 Carnegie v. United States · State v. Golding · Scharffe v. Perkins · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · Kahn v. Grant
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) May the state, in a criminal prosecution, require a defense witness to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in open court, and may it use such invocation and subsequent waiver as a basis for impeaching the witness and for adverse comment in its summation? (2) If the trial court’s ruling to permit such conduct was erroneous, was the Appellate Court correct in concluding that the error was harmless?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Any person who wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that its life or limb is endangered, or its health is likely to be injured, or its morals likely to be impaired, or does any act likely to impair the health or morals of any such child, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years or both.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Q. Well, how sharp would you say your perception of events taking place in the apartment was at the — between the dates in question? A. Very sharp. Q. Well, isn’t true, sir, that with regard to your powers of perception while you were at the defendant’s apartment during the dates in question, that you were frequently smoking marijuana—”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.