Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 592 P2D 1145 - Channel v. State

Channel v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2021

20 state decisions

80197919801990200020102020decided

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 State v. Acree · United States v. Gallo · Goodman v. State · Oldham v. State · Benson v. State

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

  1. ““When evidence which is admissible as to one (1) party or for one (1) purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““One who testifies under a grant of immunity with a promise from the government that he will not be prosecuted is a competent witness. His testimony may be received in evidence and considered by the jury even though not corroborated or supported by other evidence. “Such testimony, however, should be examined by you with greater care than the testimony of an ordinary witness. You should consider whether the testimony may be colored in such a way as to further the witness’s own interest, for a witness who realizes that he may procure his own freedom by incriminating another has motive [to] falsify. After such consideration, you may give the testimony of the immunized witness such weight as you feel it deserve [sic]”.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he prior statement of this witness does not qualify for substantive use to prove a fact but only for the limited purpose of impeachment.”
    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.