State v. Clawans’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
2 district · 107 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably State v. Carter (1982), State v. Green (1981)
2 district · 107 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 Oyler v. Adams · Meistrich v. Casino Arena Attractions, Inc. · Michaels v. Brookchester, Inc. · State v. Orecchio · State v. Hipplewith
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[the] failure of a party to produce before a trial tribunal proof which, it appears, would serve to elucidate the facts in issue, raises a natural inference that the party so faffing fears exposure of those facts would be unfavorable to him. [ 38 N.J. at 170 , 183 A.2d 77 ]”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“superior to that already utilized in respect to the fact to be proved.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... But such an inference cannot arise except upon certain conditions and the inference is always open to destruction by explanation of circumstances which make some other hypothesis a more natural one than the party's fear of exposure.... For an inference to be drawn from the nonproduction of a witness it must appear that the person was within the power of the party to produce and that his testimony would have been superior to that already utilized in respect to the fact to be proved.... For obvious reasons the inference is not proper if the witness is for some reason unavailable or is either a person who by his position would be likely to be so prejudiced against the party that the latter could not be expected to obtain the unbiased truth from him, or a person whose testimony would be cumulative, unimportant or inferior to what had been already utilized. [ Id. at 170-171 ]”
6 later decisions 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.