State v. DeZeler’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 160 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 163 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably State v. Thompson (1966), Martin v. State (1972)
3 federal appellate · 160 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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 Hawkins v. State · State v. Nelson · Smith v. St. Paul City Railway Co. · Potts v. People · Commonwealth v. Sydlosky
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 163 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Photographs are admissible as competent evidence where they accurately portray anything which it is competent for a witness to describe in words, or where they are helpful as an aid to a verbal description of objects and conditions, provided they are relevant to some material issue; and they are not rendered inadmissible merely because they vividly bring to jurors the details of a shocking crime or incidentally tend to arouse passion or prejudice.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sanders · State v. Bock““* * * form a complete chain which, in light of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the accused as to exclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, any reasonable inference other than that of guilt * *”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Beilke · State v. Loss“"It was not error to deny defendant’s repeated requests that the jury be polled to determine if they had read certain newspaper articles pertaining to the crime and the conduct of the trial. On several occasions the trial court cautioned the jurors not to read the newspapers. * * * When a jury has been clearly admonished not to do a certain act, the mere opportunity to violate that admonition, without a vestige of proof of its violation, provides no basis upon which a court of review can find that the trial court has abused its discretion in refusing to investigate the jury for such possible misconduct. * * * ” State v. De Zeler, 230 Minn. 39, 50 , 41 N.W.2d 313, 320-321 , 15 A.L.R.2d 1137 (1950).”
2 later decisions 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.