State v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently January 2022
16 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 Schaffer v. United States · United States v. Miller · United States v. Tocco · United States of America v. Rosalinda Miranda Abel Espinoza Rigoberto Rodriguez Oscar Rodriguez Hector Espinoza · State v. Aikins
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘(1) that the defendants have antagonistic defenses; (2) that important evidence in favor of one of the defendants which would be admissible on a separate trial would not be allowed on a joint trial; (3) that evidence incompetent as to one defendant and introducible against another would work prejudicially to die former with the jury; (4) diat the confession by one defendant, if introduced and proved, would be calculated to prejudice die jury against the others; and (5) that one of die defendants who could give evidence for die whole or some of die other defendants would become a competent and compellable witness on the separate trials of such other defendants.’ ” 277 Kan. at 240 (quoting Butler, 257 Kan. at 1063).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Carr““ ‘If there’s over a hundred pieces of ballistics evidence that needs to be examined, that’s all very meticulous work, it’s very time consuming. Unfortunately, the people that can do that are very few and far between, and it appears to me that there has not been any sort of delay that’s caused simply for the purpose of delay, that [the State’s] request is based upon a good faith basis.’ ” White, 275 Kan. at 600 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Mays
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.