Howard v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis
1905
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently October 2011 · most notably Cardenas v. Ortiz (1924), Emery v. Bennett (1916)
29 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 Scarborough v. Smith · Baughman v. Baughman · Lantis v. Davidson · Delashmutt v. Parrent · Paddock v. Pulsifer
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the nature of things it would be a rare case where the details of conversation or conduct could be shown indicating undue persuasion and influence. Such arts would be exercised only in the absence of witnesses, or, at most, in the presence of those whose interest and inclination would impel to their denial.” (Howard v. Carter, 71 Kan. 85, 92 , 80 Pac. 61 .)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Funk v. Fish · Post v. Hodges““It is well settled in this state that a non-expert witness may be permitted to give his judgment as to the sane or insane state of another’s mind after having detailed to the jury the extent of his opportunities to deduce a correct opinion and judgment thereon.” (Page 91.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Rumble
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.