State v. Canning’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2004
8 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 Chapman v. State of California · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Harrington v. California · Rose v. Clark · State v. Burke
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““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.” State v. Canning, 541 A.2d at 461 (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S. Ct. 1431, 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 686-87 (1986)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ramos
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.