Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 65 Nev. 584 - State v. Teeter

State v. Teeter’s Empirical Analysis

1948

Citation profile

90
cited by 90 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
May 2020
most recently cited

85 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 90 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2020 · most notably Green v. United States (1957), State v. Fouquette (1950)

85 state decisions

250194819501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Mattox v. United States · Mills v. Green · St. Pierre v. United States · Commonwealth v. Flax · People v. Sanchez

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

  1. “1. It operated to curtail and restrict, as counsel for defendant has urged, the opportunity of defendant to prepare properly for trial. 2. A defendant, if he appears for trial as a prisoner in the custody of officers, is in a less favorable position than a defendant on bail. He is not only handicapped by embarrassment and humiliation, but there is some probability, at least, that that sort of appearance may make an unfavorable impression upon the jurors, to which risk one clearly entitled to bail, as was defendant here, should not be required to be subjected, until his guilt has been proved. 3. There is also the probability that denial of bail, published in the newspapers as was done in the instant case, may make upon the public mind generally an impression that the state’s case against defendant is strong, or bail would have been allowed — that is, that the proof must be evident and the presumption great of his guilt — and that such impression may infiltrate into the mental consciousness of jurors.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “‘[I]t is not necessary for the declarant to state to anyone, expressly, that he knows or believes he is going to die, or that death is certain or near, or to indulge in any like expression; nor is it deemed essential that his physician, or anyone else, state to the injured person that he will probably die as a result of his wounds, or that they employ any similar expression. It is sufficient if the wounds are of such a nature that the usual or probable effect upon the average person so injured would be mortal; and that such probable mortal effect is not hidden, but, from experience in like cases, it may be reasonably concluded that such probable effect has revealed itself upon the human consciousness of the wounded person. * * * ’ [Emphasis in Shuman.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he indorsement of names of witnesses upon an information is largely a matter of discretion with the court; and, in the absence of a showing of abuse, or that some substantial injury has resulted to the accused, an order permitting such indorsement, even after the trial has commenced, does not constitute of itself reversible error.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.