State v. Childress’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably Kay v. United States (1958), State v. Dixon (2006)
1 federal appellate · 48 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Tot v. United States · Morrison v. People of State of California · Manley v. State of Georgia · People v. Scott · Burnette v. Commonwealth
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * To say that the reading of a pertinent statute in a criminal case constitutes a comment upon the evidence is itself ‘a reductio ad absurdum’. The reading of a statute in nowise expresses the view of- the judge on any evidence in the case. It is exclusively a statement of law. Therefore we hold that the instructions complained of do not constitute a comment on the evidence.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““In any criminal prosecution for a violation of paragraph (a) of this section relating to driving a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the amount of alcohol in the defendant’s blood at the time alleged as ’shown by chemical analysis of the defendant’s blood, urine, breath, or other bodily substance shall give rise to the following presumptions”.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * jn the case at bar the remarks objected to were addressed to the coun sel, and we do not think the provision of the Constitution quoted was intended to prevent judges from giving counsel the reasons for their rulings upon questions concerning the admission or rejection of testimony. We do not, however, wish to be understood as holding that a judge, under this provision, is at liberty in addressing counsel to comment upon the facts in the presence of the jury in a way calculated to influence their verdict. Yet it is manifest from the language of the provision that its primary object was to prevent comments on the facts in giving instructions by which the jury are to be guided, and at a time when such comments would be likely to affect their minds. Strictly speaking, we do not think the remarks quoted really amount to a comment upon the facts. * * * ””
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.