Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 769 P2D 350 - Lauthern v. State

Lauthern v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
March 2012
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2012

18 state decisions

1301989199020002010decided

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 Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Benton v. Maryland · Brown v. Ohio · Missouri v. Hunter

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

  1. “At the request of a party the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and it may enter the order on its own motion. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (1) a party who is a natural person, or (2) an officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of his cause.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(a) A person is guilty of aggravated assault and battery if he: (i) Causes serious bodily injury to another intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; ... (b) Aggravated assault and battery is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than ten years.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[P]ermitting witnesses to testify who have been in the courtroom in violation of a sequestration order is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the court and ... we [will] reverse only for an abuse of that discretion.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.