State v. Covington’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
367 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 369 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably State v. Johnson (1979), State v. Fulcher (1978)
367 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 Bruton v. United States · Simmons v. United States · California v. Curry · United States v. Louisiana · Pope v. Nebraska
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 369 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Whether counsel abuses this privilege is a matter ordinarily left to the sound discretion of the trial judge . . . .'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he viewing of a defendant in the courtroom during the various stages of a criminal proceeding by witnesses who are offered to testify as to identification of the defendant is not, of itself, such a confrontation as will taint an in-court identification unless other circumstances are shown which are so “unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification” as would deprive defendant of his due process rights.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The standard of admissibility based on relevancy and materiality is of necessity so elastic, and the variety of possible fact situations so nearly infinite, that an exact rule cannot be formulated. In attempting to express the standard more precisely, the Court has emphasized the necessity of a reasonable, or open and visible connection, rather than one which is remote, latent, or conjectural, between the evidence presented and the fact to be proved by it, at the same time pointing out that the inference to be drawn need not be a necessary one.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bates · State v. Prevette
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.