Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 836 N.E.2d 283 - Wright v. State

Wright v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
July 2014
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Illinois v. Gates · Blakely v. Washington · Gray v. Lucas, Warden, Et Al. · Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.

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

  1. “[Significant harm results when the jury is prevented from learning the extent of benefit received by a witness in exchange for his testimony. It would be obviously relevant and proper for a jury to consider the amount of compensation a witness expects to receive for his testimony. It is equally proper for this jury to know the quantity of benefit to accusing witnesses. It is quite relevant whether they are thereby avoiding imprisonment of ten days, ten weeks, or ten years.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “We are aware this case is not a post-conviction relief case. However, neither was Hicks”
    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.