Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 488 U.S. 227 - Olden v. Kentucky

Olden v. Kentucky’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

1,002
cited by 1,002 later decisions
8
cited 8 times by the Supreme Court
42
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

286 federal appellate · 25 district · 445 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,002 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2026 · most notably Lindh v. Murphy (1996), United States v. Dischner (1992)

286 federal appellate · 25 district · 445 state decisions — followed in 42 states

370019881990200020102020decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · Pointer v. Texas · Greene v. McElroy

Cited together with Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · Chambers v. Mississippi · Delaware v. Fensterer · Chapman v. State of California

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 1,002 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “to expose to the jury the facts from which [it] ... could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.”
    28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"The correct inquiry is whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the cross-examination [or excluded evidence] were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether such error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors, all readily accessible to reviewing courts. These factors include the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.””
    21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that [would be] repetitive or only marginally relevant.”
    16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.