State v. Sheffield’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 2005
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 People v. . Hayes · State v. Parks · Patten & Davies Lumber Co. v. Amigo Co. · Beavers v. United States · State v. McKay
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.
“It appears from the record that, during the progress of the trial, in the presence of the jury, and while Oscar Connally was on the stand testifying as a witness for the State, the court told the district attorney to “enter a contempt charge against this man for perjury and to deliver him to the custody of the sheriff.” The action of the court was within the power and sound discretion of the tiial judge. That it might have had a bad effect upon the jury, and thereby prejudiced the defendant’s case, was a matter to be considered by the trial judge at the time he committed the witness to the custody of the sheriff, but we do no[t] think it was error to do so under the circumstances. State v. McKay, 89 S.C. 234 , 71 S.E. 858 ; State v. Campbell, 150 S.C. 449 , 148 S.E. 472 ; People v. Hayes, 140 N.Y. 484 , 35 N.E. 951 , 23 L.R.A. 830 , 37 Am.St.Rep. 572 ; Beavers v. U.S., 6 Cir., 3 F.2d 860 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Stanley““* * * it is improper for the court, during the progress of the -trial, to make any únnecessáry comments, or to take any unnecessary action, which might tend to prejudice the rights of either of the parties litigant; but, when it becomes unavoidable during the progress of the trial, the court has the right to impose a fine upon any person connected therewith, even though it be in the presence of the jury, and such action cannot of itself cause a mistrial, merely because the occurrence might have some influence on the minds of the jury * * See State v. Sheffield, 55 N.M. 150 , 228 P.2d 431 (1951).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Anaya
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.