Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 771 P2D 1003 - Lee v. Knight

Lee v. Knight’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
5
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably 113 Ohio App. 3d 374 - Phillips v. Rayburn (1996), Hubbert v. City of Moore (1991)

6 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

1901989199020002010decided

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 Allen v. McCurry · Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Niziolek · Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kuhl · 54 Ill. App. 2d 51 - Smith v. Andrews · Asato v. Furtado

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

  1. “fully conclusive, or collateral estoppel, effect.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: [[Image here]] "22. Evidence of a final judgment, entered after a trial or upon a plea of guilty, but not upon a plea of nolo contendere, adjudging a person guilty of a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one (1) year, to prove any fact essential to sustain the judgment, but not including, when offered by the state in a criminal prosecution for purposes other than impeachment, judgments against persons other than the accused. The penden-cy of an appeal may be shown but does not affect admissibility; " * * * " (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “It was clearly not the Legislature’s intent to make evidence of conviction of minor offenses admissible, and in such circumstances the rule stated in our prior case law continues to be applicable.”
    1 later decision 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.