State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 2021
5 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 Landers v. Smith · Edwards v. Hrebec · 208 Mo. App. 169 - Hanchett Bond Co. v. Glore · State v. Harrison · Hammontree v. Huber
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We perceive a material difference between two types of trial stipulations and the continuing force of each. By one type of stipulation the parties agree to the existence or non-existence of material facts involved in their lawsuit, and they thereby alter the justiciable issues. Once this is done the stipulated agreement generally remains in effect at retrial_ Each of [the cited] cases upheld the continuing force of a stipulation of fact which had limited and fixed the justiciable issues of the lawsuit. As said, there is a material difference between the continuing force of parties’ stipulation as to the facts which change the very nature of the issues to be tried, and on the other hand the parties’ stipulation as to some procedural matter. In effect, the stipulation here was: “If A does not testify, B will not testify.” That did not change the issues of the case but merely restricted the manner of proving an issue. None of the previously cited cases on the continuing force of stipulations of material facts is relevant here where the stipulation concerned only the manner of proof. (Emphasis in original.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[W]here a stipulation is distinctly and formally made for the express purpose of relieving the opposing party from proving some fact or facts, or where a formal admission of facts is made by counsel and becomes a part of the record, such a stipulation or admission, provided it is not by its terms limited to a particular occasion, or a temporary object, can be introduced in evidence and is available as proof of the facts admitted upon a subsequent trial of the same action, unless the court permits its withdrawal upon proper application therefor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Aguirre
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.