Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 216 Kan. 14 - State v. Giddings

State v. Giddings’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2016 · most notably Scott v. Illinois (1979), State v. Faulkner (1976)

40 state decisions

32019751980199020002010decided

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 Gideon v. Wainwright · Harris v. New York · Argersinger v. Hamlin · Burgett v. Texas · Dennis v. United States

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

  1. “"... Having voluntarily taken the stand, petitioner was under an obligation to speak truthfully and accurately, and the prosecution here did no more than utilize the traditional truth-testing devices of the adversary process. Had inconsistent statements been made by the accused to some third person, it could hardly be contended that the conflict could not be laid before the jury by way of cross-examination and impeachment.'" (p. 24.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““. . . If a lesser offense is to be considered a lesser included offense under the law, all elements necessary to prove the lesser offense must be present and be required to establish the elements of the greater offense charged. If each is a separate and distinct offense, requiring proof of an element not necessary in the other, then neither can be a lesser degree of the other offense. . . .” (p. 744.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The most incriminating circumstance in the case at hand was that Mrs. Giddings used a fictitious name in signing the check. This was a circumstance from which, in our opinion, the jury was entitled to infer fraudulent intent on her part. . . .” (p. 18.)”
    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.