McCool v. Gehret’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 2014
14 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 Strickland v. Washington · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · United States v. Morgan · 79 Wash. 2d 12 - State Ex Rel. Carroll v. Junker · Minneapolis St Louis Railroad Company v. George Bombolis
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Thus, a party's efforts to interfere with a witness are not simply admissible as impeachment evidence of the tampering party's credibility. Meyer v. McDonnell, 392 A.2d at 1134. The opposing party is entitled to introduce facts regarding efforts to intimidate a witness as substantive evidence. . . . . ... the McCools were absolutely entitled to introduce the evidence of Dr. Gehret's attempt to intimidate Dr. Dein as substantive evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“This Court has held that "attempts to improperly influence a witness' testimony are fundamentally unfair and pervert the truth-seeking function." Weber v. State, Del.Supr., 457 A.2d 674, 679 .... ... it is precisely because of the egregious nature of such conduct that the law expressly permits the jury to make adverse inferences from a party's effort to intimidate witnesses or otherwise suppress probative evidence against him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In the policy of the law of this state, declared by the courts in numberless decisions, the jury is the sole judge of the facts of a case, and so jealous is the law of this policy that by express provision of the Constitution the court is forbidden to touch upon the facts of the case in its charge to the jury. 17”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Baird v. Owczarek
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.