State v. Tisdale’s Empirical Analysis
1889
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1927
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That the legislature intended that any person tampering with, bribing, or Intimidating a known witness, whether summoned as such at the time, or not. should be punished, bnl that such witness, who should yield to such bribery or persuasion, could not be punished therefor unless he was at the lime a duly summoned witness. This distinction is certainly a proper one, because there can lie no difference to the person tendering the bribe, or resorting- to the intimidation. whether the person prevented from testifying was summoned or nor. as in either event the evidence is gotten rid of, while, on the other hand, the person bribed or persuaded, being duly summoned as a witness, occupies altogether a different position from the one he occupied before lie was summoned.'’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Brule
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.