State v. Nix’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably State v. Watkins (1976), State v. Peckham (1994)
2 federal appellate · 54 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 State v. Ralls · State v. Hooper · State v. Woods · State v. Sagebiel · State v. Paxton
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . The appellant in the case at bar was prosecuted under the new act entitled ‘Uniform Controlled Substances Act’ (K. S.A. 65-4101 et seq.), which does not define ‘sale’. However, we are not constrained to restrict the definition discussed in State v. Woods, supra. Assuming the appellant’s version of the facts, the transaction between Eckhart and the appellant nevertheless constituted a ‘sale’. Whether or not the appellant possessed legal title to the marijuana, or received any consideration in return for the transfer is immaterial.” (p. 882.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Evans““Here counsel for the appellant made no proffer to the trial court out of the hearing of the jury, of the evidence which was claimed to have been erroneously excluded, and the substance of the evidence excluded was not made known to the trial court in any form as required by K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 60-243(c) and K.S.A. 60-405. Consequently, the appellant is in no position to assert error on either of the two points regarding the exclusion of evidence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hodges““ ‘. . . [F]or the purpose of discrediting a witness, evidence is not admissible to show that he is a user of [drugs], or to show the effect of the use of such drugs, unless it is proven that the witness was under their influence at the time of the occurrences as to which he testifies, or at the time of the trial, or that his mind or memory or powers of observation were affected by the habit.’ ” (pp. 295-296.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Coe
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.