Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 73 KAN 688 - State v. Campbell

State v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis

1906

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
18
states following
April 2010
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 58 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2010 · most notably Clark v. United States (1933), Ziang Sung Wan v. United States (1924)

3 federal appellate · 58 state decisions — followed in 18 states

160190619101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 People v. . Molineux · Malinda Fox v. The State of Ohio · Hinshaw v. State · State v. Fasset · State v. Butler

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

  1. ““It is now regarded as a well-settled rule, and recognized in the elementary books, that where, a witness answers questions upon examination on a trial tending to criminate himself, and to which he might have demurred, his answers may be used for all purposes. * * * Such answers are deemed voluntary, because the witness may refuse to answer any question tending to criminate him. * * * Independent of any supposed authority, I do not see how, upon principle, the evidence of a witness, not in custody and not charged with crime, taken either on a coroner’s inquest or before a committing magistrate or a grand jury, could be rejected.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The law presumes that a party who is called upon to testify as a mere witness knows his rights. He may decline to testify to anything that may tend to incriminate him. This the defendant could have' done had he chosen to claim his privilege. Having failed to do so, he cannot now complain.””
    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.