Nester v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
2 district · 136 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 140 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2017 · most notably Foster v. California (1969), Garner v. State (1962)
2 district · 136 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 Lisenba v. People of State of California · People v. . Molineux · 28 Cal. 2d 306 - People v. Peete · People v. . Sharp · Johnson v. State
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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others ...”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Willett v. State · State v. Iaukea“[e]ven where relevancy ... may be found, fair trial demands that the evidence not be admitted in cases where, by virtue of its prejudicial nature, it is more likely to distract from the essential issue than bear upon it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Nystedt · Greene v. State“"... except when it shows merely criminal disposition [citations omitted], evidence that is relevant is not excluded because it reveals the commission of an offense other than that charged. `The general tests of the admissibility of evidence in a criminal case are: * * * does it tend logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference to establish any fact material for the people, or to overcome any material matter sought to be proved by the defense? If it does, then it is admissible, whether it embraces the commission of another crime or does not, whether the other crime be similar in kind or not, whether it be part of a single design or not.' [citations omitted] `It is true that in trying a person charged with one offense it is ordinarily inadmissible to offer proof of another and distinct offense, but this is only because the proof of a distinct offense has ordinarily no tendency to establish the offense charged; But, whenever the case is such that proof of one crime tends to prove any fact material in the trial of another, such proof is admissible, and the fact that it may tend to prejudice the defendant in the minds of jurors is no ground for its exclusion.'" [citations omitted]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Iaukea · State v. Iaukea
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.