Marshall v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably State v. Stanley (1998), State v. Tabone (2009)
33 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 Webb v. Texas · United States v. Winter · United States v. Nunn · State v. Rhodes · Commonwealth v. Laws
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In sum, while we agree with the court below that a judge presiding over a jury trial has the right to interrogate witnesses in an effort to clarify the issues, we stress that he should exercise this right sparingly. It is a far more prudent practice for the judge to allow counsel to clear up disputed points on cross-examination, unassisted by the court. In this manner, the judge is most likely to preserve his role as an impartial arbiter, because he avoids the appearance of acting as an advocate.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Now, Mr. Marshall, you are under oath. If you fail to tell the truth, you can be charged with perjury. You took the witness stand in front of me the 13th of November. Now, you are trying now to testify differently from what you said on November the 13th, and I’ll issue a bench warrant charging you with perjury if you persist.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Once a witness swears to give truthful answers, there is no requirement to "warn him not to commit perjury or, conversely to direct him to tell the truth." It would render the sanctity of the oath quite meaningless to require admonition to adhere to it. [ 409 U.S. at 97 , 93 S.Ct. at 353 ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.