State v. Levitt’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
3 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2022 · most notably Commonwealth v. Tavares (1982), State v. Koedatich (1988)
3 district · 46 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 Berger v. United States · State v. Kociolek · Panko v. Flintkote Co. · Wright v. Bernstein · State v. Rios
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"There seems to be little doubt in this case this man's religion [defendant is Jewish] was injected into the deliberations of this jury; that is corroborated. There seems to be little doubt that at least one person on that jury was affected, and it seems prejudicially so and it makes little difference that the infection was only slight so long as it is present. * * * * * * [T]he deliberations * * * should be free of taint of passion, prejudice or mistake."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Though the trial judge cannot examine the thought processes of jurors in reaching their verdict, he can receive jurors' evidence as to the existence of conditions or the occurrence of events to determine whether they showed an adverse prejudice bearing on the verdict. [at 271 (citations omitted)]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Where there are sufficient allegations that the jury’s verdict was discolored by improper influences, the trial judge should investigate the truth of the charges so that he may determine whether a new trial is warranted. And it makes no difference whether the improper influences occurred inside or outside the jury room. [Citing cases.] Though the trial judge cannot examine the thought processes of jurors in reaching their verdict, he can receive jurors’ evidence as to the existence of conditions or the occurrence of events to determine whether they showed an adverse prejudice bearing on the verdict.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brandimarte v. Green
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.