Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 486 N.W.2d 384 - State v. Kaiser

State v. Kaiser’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
3
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently March 2016

23 state decisions

80199220002010decided

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 United States v. Bagley · Chicago Park District v. Alexander · State v. Schwantes · State v. Zeimet · State v. Galvan

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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We concede that it is at least arguable that the defense was not prejudiced by nondisclosure and that therefore a new trial is not required. However, in the exercise of our supervisory power over the trial courts, in the interests of justice, and in the interests of underscoring the fact that our rules, in providing for complete disclosure to the defense, are broader than the rules one may extract from the applicable line of federal cases relied upon by the court of appeals, we have concluded that defendant should receive a new trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “to make continuing disclosure when new things are added to the file after defense counsel has looked at it. A prosecutor cannot circumvent the requirement of open-file discovery by not taking notes or by not putting things in the file that belong in the file.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.