Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 51 Idaho 68 - State v. Ward

State v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis

1931

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
October 2002
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 2002

9 state decisions

4019311940195019601970198019902000decided

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 McMinn v. Whelan · State v. Elder · 15 Cal. App. 620 - People v. Overacker · State v. Harkin · 68 Cal. App. 95 - People v. Matthew

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

  1. ““ * * * This court has repeatedly held that a new trial ought never to be allowed notwithstanding some mistake- or even misdirection by the judge, provided the reviewing court is satisfied that justice has been done and that, upon the evidence, no other verdict could properly have been found [Cases cited] This rule is based on legislative enactment (C.S., secs. 9084, 9191 [19-2819, 19-3702] ), and it is our duty to give to the statutes the effect intended by the legislature. These statutes were clearly intended to avoid the many miscarriages of justice occasioned by the strict adherence to the old rule of presumption that any error is prejudicial. [Citing cases] In my opinion, in refusing to heed these enactments, the court has taken a backward rather than a forward step in the efficient enforcement of our criminal statutes.” At page 80, 1 P.2d at page 624 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “the action of the jury in finding appellant guilty of murder in the first degree, though instructed as to the elements of murder in the second degree, as an included offense, removed any question of prejudice with regard to the instructions on manslaughter, since, having found the appellant guilty of the greater offense, it is evident that they did not consider the appellant guilty of any lesser offense.”
    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.