State v. Mullins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 state decisions

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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 27 Kan. App. 2d 340 - State v. Giles · State v. Carapezza

2. ““Q. [Mr. Cahill] Okay. Was there anything about that evaluation that caused you to be concerned that there might be coaching or that [victim] in some way would be making this up? Anything inconsistent in his statements regarding that? “MR. REARDON: I object to this on the basis she can’t be a human lie detector as to whether or not the child was telling the truth. “MR. CAHILL: That’s not what I am asking. Asking if anything led her to be concerned about the statements in that area that were inconsistent. “THE COURT: I will allow it. Go airead. “Q. [Mr. Cahill] go ahead and answer it. “A. [Phillips] I thought he had been coached? “Q. [Mr. Cahill] Right. Any indication of that kind of behavior? “A. [Phillips] No.” (Emphasis added.) 267 Kan. at 93 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Drayton

3. ““[T]he witnesses attempted to serve as human lie detectors for the child and both told the jury that in their professional opinions the child was truthful and the defendant was guilty as charged. We are convinced that it was the function of tire jury to hear the testimony of the witnesses as to what the child said, and then to make a determination of the reliability of tire child’s statements.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Plaskett