Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 310 SW2D 942 - State v. Pigques

State v. Pigques’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
6
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 66 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hospital (1993), State v. Spica (1965)

2 federal appellate · 66 state decisions

2401958196019701980199020002010decided

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 State v. Whitaker · State v. Shipman · State v. Scott · State v. Farris · Houfburg v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. of Maine

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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The fact that a witness is interested in the result of an action, civil or criminal, in the trial of which he testifies, or is biased or prejudiced in favor of or against any of the parties thereto is proper to be shown and considered as bearing on the credit which should be accorded his testimony. The interest or bias of a witness and his relation to or feeling toward a party are never irrelevant matters, and where the interest or bias is denied by the witness, it may be shown by the testimony of others, and even where such interest or bias is admitted by the witness, the extent of it may be shown, although much is left to the discretion of the trial court as to how far the inquiry may go into the details of the difficulty, disagreement, or other transaction which caused the hostility, prejudice, or ill feeling.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[i]t cannot be, that the common security of the dwelling house is violated by breaking one of the shutters of a door or window which has several. True, it weakens the security which the mansion is supposed to afford, and renders the breach more easy; but as additional force will be necessary before an entry can be effected, there can, under such circumstances, be no burglary committed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““To constitute burglary, an entry must be made into the house with the hand, foot, or an instrument with which it is intended to commit a felony. . . .” (Emphasis added).”
    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.