Ashton v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 333 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 345 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably Miller v. Griesel (1974), Lawrence v. State (1972)
6 federal appellate · 333 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 Ruloff v. . the People · Parker v. State · Crum v. State · Niemeyer v. McCarty · Dotterer v. State
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 345 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[Fjor the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness ... only those convictions for crimes involving dishonesty or false statement shall be admissible ... However, this Court is bound by 1.0. 1971, 84-1-14-14, (Ind.Ann.Stat. § 2-1715 [1968 Repl.]), which permits impeachment by showing prior convictions for crimes which would have rendered a witness incompetent. Those crimes are: treason, murder, rape, arson, burglary, robbery, kidnapping, forgery and willful and corrupt perjury."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Simply stated, either the particular criminal conviction reflects on the witness' credibility for truth and veracity, or it does not. If the particular conviction is for a crime which has a tendency to reflect on the individual's credibility for truth and veracity, such evidence should not be excluded; if the prior conviction is for a crime which has no bearing whatsoever on his credibility for truth and veracity, such evidence should not be admitted." (emphasis supplied)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““In the case at bar, counsel for plaintiff-appellant questioned the witness in regard to convictions for any crime. If counsel had a particular conviction in mind, he failed to make its nature known to the trial court by an offer to prove. Having determined that all crimes do not necessarily reflect on the credibility of the witness, we are of the opinion that the trial court did not err in excluding the question. It appears that the question was nothing more than a ‘fishing expedition’ which, if answered, would not necessarily have revealed any admissible evidence. Such information could have been gained prior to trial by proper utilization of discovery.””
3 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.