Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 220 Kan. 341 - State v. Wilson

State v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

104
cited by 104 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

102 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 104 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Schad v. Arizona (1991), State v. Freeman (1978)

102 state decisions — followed in 10 states

360197619801990200020102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · 9 Cal. 3d 185 - People v. Milan · People v. . Sullivan · State v. Ritson · State v. Moffitt

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

  1. “‘In a crime of violence which results in death, photographs which serve to illustrate the nature and extent of the wounds inflicted are admissible when they corroborate the testimony of witnesses or are relevant to testimony of a doctor as to the cause of death even though they may appear gruesome.” (Syl. 5.)”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If a verdict of first degree murder can be justified on either of two interpretations of the evidence, premeditation or felony murder, the verdict cannot be impeached by showing that part of the jury proceeded upon one interpretation of the evidence and part on another.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““If an utterance previously made out of court is offered in evidence merely for the purpose of establishing what was then said, and not for the purpose of establishing the truth of the statement, the testimony is not hearsay. If relevant it is admissible through the person who heard it.” (State v. Wilson, 220 Kan. 341 , Syl. 4, 552 P.2d 931 . See also State v. McClain, 220 Kan. 80 , Syl. 1, 551 P.2d 806 .)”
    2 later decisions 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.