Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 219 NW2D 665 - State v. Peterson

State v. Peterson’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
8
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably State v. Gray (1977), State v. O'CONNELL (1979)

1 federal appellate · 56 state decisions

40019741980199020002010decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Johnson v. Zerbst · Schmerber v. State of California · United States v. Robinson · Harris v. New York

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

  1. “"* * *. We overrule State v. District Court (Delaware County ) and now hold a defendant, by authority of § 781.10, The Code, may take discovery depositions of State's witnesses. The denial of defendant's application to take discovery was error."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘Impeachment’ is the word given to denote the technique for calling into question the veracity of a witness. Fundamental evidence law recognizes five surviving lines of attack upon the credibility of a witness. The first, perhaps the most effective and certainly the most frequently employed, is to prove a witness, on a previous occasion, has made statements inconsistent with his present testimony. A second alternative is to show the witness is biased, by reason of emotional influences such as kinship for one party or a hostility to another, or motives of pecuniary interest, whether legitimate or corrupt. A third alternative is to attack the character of the witness. The fourth recognized line of attack upon a witness’s credibility is to show a defect in his capacity to observe, remember or recount the matters testified about. The fifth, and final surviving alternative, is to prove by other witnesses that material facts are otherwise than as testified to by the witness under attack.” (Emphasis supplied).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “§ 781.10, The Code, provides as follows: “A defendant in a criminal case, either after preliminary information, indictment, or information, may examine witnesses conditionally or on notice or commission, in the same manner and with like effect as in civil actions.””
    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.