Kitchen v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
104 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably Beed v. State (1980), Brown v. State (2008)
104 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 Wicks v. State · 64 Cal. 2d 159 - Ballard v. Superior Court of San Diego County · Dixon v. State · State v. Manning · Gruzen 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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he ability to understand the obligation of an oath and to comprehend the obligation imposed by it; an understanding of the consequences of false swearing; and the ability to receive accurate impressions and to retain them, to the extent that the capacity exists to transmit to the fact finder a reasonable statement of what was seen, felt or heard. [ 275 Ark. at 179 , 628 S.W.2d at 307 , quoting Kitchen v. State, supra . ]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The motion in limine is a useful tool, but care must be exercised to avoid indiscriminate application of it lest parties be prevented from even trying to prove their contentions. That a plaintiff may have a thin case or a defendant a tenuous defense is ordinarily insufficient justification for prohibiting such party from trying to establish the contention. Nor should a party ordinarily be required to try a case or defense twice — once outside the jury’s presence to satisfy the trial court of its sufficiency and then again before the jury. Moreover, the motion in limine is not ordinarily employed to choke off an entire claim or defense, as it was here regarding arson. Rather, it is usually used to prohibit mention of some specific matter, such as an inflammatory piece of evidence, until the admissibility of that matter has been shown out of the hearing of the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Schichtl v. Slack““[took] the position that the fact that the testimony of an alleged victim in a trial on a charge of a sexual offense will be without corroboration, or will be only slightly corroborated, does not compel a psychiatric examination or evaluation of a witness con sidering her competency to testify ... although there is respectable authority supporting a contrary view.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Redd
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.