State v. Cosby’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably State v. Ward (2011), State v. Dixon (2009)
50 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Edwards v. Arizona · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Doyle v. Ohio
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A district judge has broad discretion in determining the use and extent of relevant evidence in rebuttal, and such a ruling will not be ground for reversal absent abuse of that discretion that unduly prejudices the defendant. Generally, admission of rebuttal evidence intended to contradict facts put into evidence during the defense case is not error. State v. Blue, 221 Kan. 185, 188 , 558 P.2d 136 (1976) (rebuttal evidence admissible under K.S.A. 60-420 to attack defendant’s credibility; evidence competent to show testimony of defendant, defense witness false).” State v. Cosby, 285 Kan. 230, 250 , 169 P.3d 1128 (2007).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Sitlington““[W]hen reviewing a district judge’s suppression decision on an accused’s statements, the factual underpinnings of the decision are reviewed for substantial competent evidence, but the ultimate legal decision drawn from those facts is reviewed de novo. State v. Mattox, 280 Kan. 473, 480 , 124 P.3d 6 (2005); State v. Walker, 276 Kan. 939, 944 , 80 P.3d 1132 (2003). We do not reweigh the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicts in the evidence. State v. Swanigan, 279 Kan. 18, 23 , 106 P.3d 39 (2005).” State v. Cosby, 285 Kan. 230, 240 , 169 P.3d 1128 (2007).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Cumulative trial errors, considered collectively, may be so great as to require reversal of a defendant’s conviction. The test is whether the totality of the circumstances substantially prejudiced the defendant and denied him or her a fair trial. No prejudicial error may be found under the cumulative effect rule if the evidence is overwhelming against a defendant.” State v. Cosby, 285 Kan. 230, 250 , 169 P.3d 1128 (2007) (citing State v. Anthony, 282 Kan. 201, 216-17 , 145 P.3d 1 [2006]).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Magallanez
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.