5 Neb. Ct. App. 853 - State v. Krutilek’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
October 1999
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Green · 54 Ill. 2d 401 - People v. Cole · Curry v. State · State v. Hankins · State v. Bashor
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“THE COURT: ... I understand you may be acquainted with the last witness’ daughter; is that correct? [Juror]: Yes. I am a member of the Eagle’s Club and I know her from down there. I didn’t know her last name. THE COURT: Now, other than that you know her, is this a close personal relationship or just a casual acquaintance? [Juror]: Casual. We visit down there. THE COURT: Is there anything about that that would make you less than a fair and impartial juror? [Juror]: I can’t say because — THE COURT: Well — [Juror]: We visited long enough, kind of friends. THE COURT: Have you ever visited about this case? [Juror]: No. THE COURT: Well, I guess the answer is kind of up to you. All cases are difficult, you know. And all relationships are difficult. The question is: Ultimately is your mindset that you feel that you could be a fair and impartial juror both to Mr. Krutilek and to the State? [Juror]: I would hate to say that our friendship would sway me. THE COURT: And do you feel that you would do your best to set that aside? [Juror]: I’ll do my best.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Krutilek“the trial court erred in allowing the State to produce evidence of his prior automobile theft convictions. Krutilek’s prior convictions were relevant to show, contrary to Krutilek’s testimony, that he did not have permission to take Goswick’s car, that Goswick did not want him to take the car in order to hide it from her ex-husband, and that she did not eventually just give the car to Krutilek. The prior convictions also had the proper purpose of showing absence of mistake and intent to steal the automobile. . .. Therefore, the trial court did not err in allowing the State to present evidence of Krutilek’s two prior automobile theft convictions.”
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.