Kwosek v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently July 2003
4 federal appellate · 9 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 Yerkes v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. · Ackley v. Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance · Schmidt 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Plaintiff in error contends that the jury became prejudiced by hearing twice what his counsel calls ‘the gory details.’ We think no error was committed. It is largely a matter of discretion for the trial court to determine how many witnesses may testify to' the same event, though the event involves unpleasant details. When the evidence becomes merely cumulative, the trial court may refuse to hear additional witnesses on the same subject. Even if the two confessions were identical in every respect, we would find that there was no abuse of discretion in admitting the evidence concerning them, the. confessions being made at different times and one being oral and the other by written, signed statement.””
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.