Pixley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 2004
15 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 State v. Bunk · Kirkendoll v. State · Haines v. Territory · Witt v. United States · Hollibaugh v. Hehn
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In any event, the matter of exclusion of witnesses is largely a matter resting in the sound discretion of the court, and only a grave abuse of that discretion should be noticed. In Haines v. Territory, 3 Wyo. 167, 177 , 13 P. 8, 14 , it is stated, ‘The matter of exclusion of any and all witnesses [including the prosecuting witness] from the court-room during the progress of the trial is wholly in the discretion of the court, and will not be reviewed, except for gross abuse.’ The holding in Martinez v. State, 80 Wyo. 325, 333 , 342 P.2d 227, 229 , is quite similar. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Whiteley v. State
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.