State v. White’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently April 2010 · most notably State v. Grissom (1992), State v. Graham (1990)
67 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 Chapman v. State of California · Edwards v. Arizona · Michigan v. Jackson · Arizona v. Roberson · Comfort v. California
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An error of constitutional magnitude is serious and may not be held to be harmless unless the appellate court is willing to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations omitted.] Thus, before we may declare the error harmless, we must be able to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial. [Citation omitted.]” State v. White, 246 Kan. 28, 37 , 785 P.2d 950 (1990).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““An error of constitutional magnitude is serious and may not be held to be harmless unless the appellate court is willing to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . [Bjefore we may declare the error harmless, we must be able to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial.” State v. White, 246 Kan. 28, 37 , 785 P.2d 950 , aff’d as modified 246 Kan. 393 , 789 P.2d 1175 (1990).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Kelly“When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged, the standard of review on appeal is whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Baker
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.