State v. Allison’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2019
18 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. Donlay · State v. Deavers · State v. Lumbrera · State v. Whitaker · State v. Weigel
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[C]umulative trial errors, when considered collectively, may be so great as to require reversal of a defendant’s conviction. The test is whether the totality of circumstances substantially prejudiced the defendant and denied the defendant a fair trial. No prejudicial error may be found upon this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant.” State v. Allison, 259 Kan. 25, 37-38 , 910 P.2d 817 (1996) (citing State v. Lumbrera, 252 Kan. 54 , Syl. ¶ 1, 845 P.2d 609 [1992]).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'You should consider with caution the testimony of a witness who, in exchange for benefits from the State, testifies in behalf of the State, if that testimony is not supported by other evidence.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Dean
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.