Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 506 F.2d 1248 - Evans v. Cowan

Evans v. Cowan’s Empirical Analysis

506 F.2d 1248 · 1974

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
4
states following
April 2015
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably United States v. Ford (1989), 493 So. 2d 588 - State v. Green (1986)

22 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

12019741980199020002010decided

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 Oyler v. Boles · Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · General Telephone Co. v. Federal Communications Commission · Wilson v. Commonwealth

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

  1. “. we are convinced that the possibility of egregious unfairness was so great in the absence of a limiting instruction that the failure to give one constituted clear error. The Supreme Court made it clear in Spencer [v. Texas, 385 U.S. 554 , 87 S.Ct. 648 , 17 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967)] that the obvious prejudice to defendant could be tolerated only where the jury was admonished by the trial court not to use the evidence of previous convictions in determining guilt or innocence on the primary charge. Further, in the circumstances presented by the record before us we hold that the trial court had the duty to give a limiting instruction even if the defendant had not requested one. 506 F.2d 1249 . [Emphasis added.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “possibility of egregious unfairness [that] was so great in the absence of a limiting instruction that the failure to give one constituted clear error.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the possibility of egregious unfairness ... (and) constituted clear error”
    1 later decision 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.