Kugzruk v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently July 2002 · most notably RLR v. State (1971), 165 W. Va. 741 - State v. Craft (1980)
45 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 Douglas v. Alabama · Johnson v. United States · Laskey Bros. of West Virginia, Inc. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. · Massiah v. United States · Huggins v. Raines
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““However, there are many well established exceptions to this rule [prohibiting evidence of other crimes] ... to the end that all relevant facts and circumstances tending to establish any of the constituent elements of the crime of which the defendant is accused may be made to appear. Thus, evidence of other criminal acts has been held admissible by this court when they are so blended or connected with the one on trial as that proof of one incidentally involves the other; or explains the circumstances thereof; or tends logically to prove any element of the crime charged. Such evidence is admissible if it is ... so associated that proof of one tends to prove the other....””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he rule is that evidence of other offenses is admissible when substantially revelant to the offense charged; inadmissible when its relevance is insignificant; and, in borderline cases, admissible when its relevance outweighs the undue prejudice that may flow from ⅜ ⅜ ⅝”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Gafford v. State · Nicholi v. State“We hold that nonadherence by the trial court to the provisions of Crim.R. 38 does not automatically constitute reversible error, A violation of the mandate of Crim.R. 38 is not prejudicial error unless such nonadherence has affected a substantial right of the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Koehler v. State · Lee 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.