State v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

cited by 37 later decisions

states following

March 2018

most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably State v. Marshall (1997), 769 So. 2d 974 - Asay v. State (2000)

37 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 United States v. Morgan · United States v. Alaska · White v. Illinois · White v. Illinois · Oberg v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

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

“[A] party may be allowed to take post-conviction depositions of the judge who presided over the trial only when the testimony of the presiding judge is absolutely necessary to establish factual circumstances not in the record, provided the requirements set forth above are fulfilled and the judge's thought process is not violated.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Rodriguez v. State · Smith v. State
“should not be utilized as a technique to disqualify the original trial judge from further hearings in the case. The need to have a trial judge testify is very limited in scope and particularly applies only to factual matters that are outside the record.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Rodriguez v. State · 717 So. 2d 477 - Rivera v. State
“On a motion which sets forth good reason . . . the court may allow limited discovery into matters which are relevant and material, and where the discovery is permitted the court may place limitations on the sources and scope.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 214 Wis. 2d 328 - State v. O'BRIEN · 974 So. 2d 1047 - Kelley v. State

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.