State v. Ackward’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
160 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 162 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably State v. Johnson (2008), State v. Davis (2007)
160 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Nix v. Williams · Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States · Frazier v. Cupp · Murray v. United States · United States v. Payner
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 162 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Cumulative trial errors, when considered collectively, may be so great as to require reversal of the defendant’s conviction. The test is whether the totality of circumstances substantially prejudiced the defendant and denied him a fair trial. No prejudicial error may be found upon this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant. [Citation omitted.]’ ” State v. Davis, 283 Kan. 569, 583 , 158 P.3d 317 (2007) (quoting State v. Ackward, 281 Kan. 2, 29 , 128 P.3d 382 [2006]).”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Davis · State v. Davis““In reviewing a district court’s decision regarding suppression, this court reviews the factual underpinnings of the decision by a substantial competent evidence standard and the ultimate legal conclusion by a de novo standard with independent judgment. This court does not reweigh evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicts in the evidence. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Ackward, 281 Kan. 2, 8 , 128 P.3d 382 (2006).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Andrews · State v. Hess““Evidence obtained unlawfully in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights is admissible under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule where the prosecution can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the unlawfully obtained evidence would have ultimately or inevitably been discovered by lawful means.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Walker
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.