State v. Hunt’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably State v. Robinson (1991), State v. Martin (1988)
48 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 · Wong Sun v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`In appraising the effect of incompetent evidence once admitted and afterwards withdrawn, the Court will look to the nature of the evidence and its probable influence upon the minds of the jury in reaching a verdict.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the instructions then given were not specific as to the content of the challenged questions, and by this time the evidence must have found secure lodgment in the minds of the jurors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The Court: Members of the jury, the witness, Richard Vaughan, the last witness who testified for the defendant, and testified as to the general character and reputation of the defendant, was asked a number of questions on cross examination by the Solicitor. The first question asked on cross-examination was: Mr. Vaughan, you say you have known him for a long time. Answer: Yes, sir. Members of the jury, there were a number of other questions asked by the Solicitor of the witness, Richard Vaughan, two of those questions under objection by defendant’s counsel, and the Court overruled the objection. I now reverse my ruling and sustain the objection, not only to those two questions, but I instruct you that you will not consider for any purpose the other questions propounded by the Solicitor. The Court instructs you that you will disregard each of these questions propounded by the Solicitor of the witness, Mr. Vaughan, and erase the matter from your minds. You will disabuse your minds of those questions on cross examination by the Solicitor of the witness, Richard Vaughan. “Members of the jury, questions are not evidence. Questions by counsel or by the Solicitor are not evidence, they are simply questions. Evidence is the sworn testimony that comes from the lips of the witnesses on the stand.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.