State v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 144 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 150 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably State v. McCullough (2012), State v. Herbel (2013)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 144 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 Crawford v. Washington · Ohio v. Roberts · Koon v. United States · Davis v. Washington · Idaho v. Wright
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 150 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]).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`A trial court's determination of whether a statement is admissible under the Kansas hearsay statutes is reviewed by this court for an abuse of discretion, which includes a determination that the trial court's discretion was exercised in light of a correct understanding of the applicable law.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hughes · State v. Miller““In general, when considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. [Citation omitted.] In cases where a defendant objects to instructions, this court is required to consider the instructions as a whole and not isolate any one instruction. [Citation omitted.] ‘ “ ‘If the instructions properly and fairly state law as applied to the facts of the case, and a jury could not reasonably have been misled by them, the instructions do not constitute reversible error even if they are in some way erroneous.’ ” ’ [Citations omitted.]” State v. Davis, 283 Kan. 569, 581 , 158 P.3d 317 (2007).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Edwards
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.