State v. Stahl’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently July 1980 · most notably State v. Sinclair (1971), State v. Bickham (1960)
2 federal appellate · 42 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. Henry · State v. Morgan · State v. Johnson · State v. Jackson · State v. Antoine
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"As shown by the trial judge's per curiam, the witness was qualified to the judge's satisfaction. The rule is well settled that whether a witness is entitled to be heard in the capacity of expert is within the trial judge's province to decide, and his ruling will not be disturbed where no error appears. Moreover, under Article 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the opinions of a qualified expert are admissible on matters in the field in which he has qualified. * * *"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under the well-settled jurisprudence of this court, it is reversible error for the district attorney to call to the attention of the jury, either by direct statement or by plain inference, the fact that the defendant has not testified. See State v. Antoine, 189 La. 619 , 180 So. 465 ; State v. Bentley, 219 La. 893 , 54 So.2d 137 , and numerous authorities there cited. And where such a comment is made, the verdict of the jury will be set aside even though the judge instructs the jury to dismiss the comment from their minds and not to permit themselves to be influenced by it. State v. Richardson, 175 La. 823 , 144 So. 587 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bickham““Counsel may argue to the jury both the law and the evidence of the case, but must confine themselves to matters as to which evidence has been received, or of which judicial cognizance is taken, and to the law applicable to the evidence; and counsel shall refrain from any appeal to prejudice.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Sinclair
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.