Saucedo v. Winger’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
112 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably State v. Ward (2011), State v. Whitesell (2000)
112 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. Lumbrera · State v. Arney · State v. Fenton · State v. White · Kincaid v. Wade
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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An exercise of discretion which results in an error of constitutional magnitude is serious and may not be held to be harmless unless the court is willing to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, before a judge may declare tire error harmless, tire judge 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. Bowser, 252 Kan. 582 , Syl. ¶ 2, 847 P.2d 1231 (1993). See State v. White, 246 Kan. 28, 37 , 785 P.2d 950 , aff'd as modified 246 Kan. 393 , 789 P.2d 1175 (1990).” Saucedo v. Winger, 252 Kan. 718, 732 , 850 P.2d 908 (1993).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] party is denied the right to a fair trial when a juror introduces evidence on material issues of fact to the jury during its deliberations.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘The admission of evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. [Citation omitted.] An appellate court’s standard of review regarding a trial court’s admission of evidence, subject to exclusionary rules, is abuse of discretion. Judicial discretion is abused when judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. If reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion. One who asserts that the court abused its discretion bears the burden of showing such abuse of discretion.’ [Citations omitted.]””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.