State v. Olinghouse’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 102 Ill. 2d 201 - People v. Taylor (1984), State v. Turner (1981)
65 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 Jackson v. Denno · Gregg v. Georgia · Sherbert v. Verner · Woodson v. North Carolina · Trop v. Dulles
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * [A] trial court necessarily and properly has considerable discretion in control and conduct of voir dire examination of veniremen; and an appellate court will differ or interfere with the exercise of that discretion only when the record shows a manifest abuse of discretion and a real probability of injury to the complaining party.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hurley · State v. Simms“Counsel: Let me ask you if that series of events [friend’s murderjwould tend to color your thinking here a little bit today? This is a murder trial. Venireman: Yes, sir it might. Counsel: How close of a friend was this? Venireman: Well, we grew up together and went to school together. Counsel: You were childhood chums then? Venireman: Right. Counsel: Was it a — without going into facts in great detail, did it involve firearms, stabbing? Venireman: Firearms. Counsel: Okay — you do believe that you might have a hard time putting that out of your mind as far as considering the facts of this instant case? Venireman: Well, I can’t tell you for sure you know, it is hard to tell right now, you know. Counsel: Let me come back to that, you think about that for a minute or two. Counsel: Mr. Thompson, do you have any further thoughts? Venireman: No. Counsel: I don’t want to put you on the spot. You would try but you don’t know whether you could, is that a fair conclusion? Venireman: That is what I would do, try. Counsel: But in searching your mind you are not sure whether you could or could not? Venireman: That is correct. Counsel: I want those to be your words, not mine. Venireman: That is right. Counsel: Okay, you feel comfortable with what I said? Venireman: Yes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Appellant also contends that the above enactment [§ 559.011, RSMo Supp.1975] was violative of Section 28 of Article III, Constitution of Missouri, in that the limitation upon parole in the event of a life ' sentence for capital murder had the effect of amending Section 549.261, RSMo 1969, pertaining to the State Board of Probation and Parole, but that that section as amended, was not set forth in the bill. Amendments by implication are not subject to the constitutional limitation here invoked. State ex rel. McNary v. Stussie, 518 S.W.2d 630, 635 [2] (Mo. banc 1974).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Johnson
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.