Carter v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably State v. Fisher (2003), State v. Howard (1987)
3 federal appellate · 46 state decisions — followed in 12 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 100 Ohio App. 345 - State v. Sheppard · Ratton v. Busby · Stamp v. Commonwealth · White v. Little · State v. . Kendall
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is no reason that occurs to us why this [juror questioning of a witness] should not be allowed in the sound discretion of the Court, and where the question asked is not in violation of the general rules established for eliciting testimony in such cases. This course has always been followed without objection, so far as the writer has observed, in the conduct of trials in our Superior Courts, and there is not only nothing improper in it when done in a seemly manner and with the evident purpose of discovering the truth, but a juror may, and often does, ask a very pertinent and helpful question in furtherance of the investigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Howard““The practice of permitting jurors to propound questions should not be encouraged by the Trial Court, but it should not be forbidden by preliminary instruction. As a question is propounded during the course of a trial it is within the sound discretion of the Trial Court to make a determination as to whether the question is for the evident purpose of discovering the truth and whether such question is proper.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dolezal v. Goode““Generally jurors are not familiar with the rules governing the admission of evidence, and in the very nature of such a situation counsel quite naturally will hesitate to ob ject to a question propounded by a juror, even though it may be incompetent and this practice is so dangerous to the rights of the litigant that we cannot encourage the practice.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cherry v. State
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.