Bakken v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently September 2012
2 federal appellate · 22 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 Curley v. United States · Commissioner v. Singer Sewing Machine Co. · Love v. State · Whitton v. State · Johnson v. Securities & Exchange Commission
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At the close of the evidence or at such earlier time during the trial as the court reasonably directs, any party may file written requests that the court instruct the jury on the law set forth in the requests. The court shall inform counsel of its proposed action upon the requests prior to their arguments to the jury, but the court shall instruct the jury after the arguments are completed. No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection. Opportunity shall be given to make the objection out of the hearing of the jury, by excusing the jury or hearing objections in chambers.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Due to the questionable quality of [the complaining witness’s] testimony, [the friend’s] evidence assumed a crucial role in the conviction of Bakken. [[Image here]] Given the closeness of the case and the importance of [the friend’s] testimony concerning Bakken’s purported admission, we believe that the trial court’s failure to give this mandatory cautionary instruction was so obviously prejudicial that we choose to notice the point despite the absence of any objection”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Anthony v. State · Avery v. State“(b) Plain Error. Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Stork v. State · Avery 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.