McCracken v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
July 1975
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Anders v. California · Veal v. Newlin, Inc. · Smith v. State · Goresen v. State
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the main objective to be served by cross-examination is legitimate and permissible as it is here, then the fact that particular wrongful acts are also suggested or established would be merely incidental and should not prevent the primary and legitimate objective of impeachment by showing bias from being accomplished, (footnote omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bakken v. State“Of course, if counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. That request must, however, be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pore 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.