State v. Pulliam’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
135 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 137 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably Jackson v. Denno (1964), State v. Thomas (1981)
135 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 State v. Thomas · Cwach v. United States · McDonald v. United States · Indian Fred v. State · State v. Boozer
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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In McDonald v. United States, 8 Cir., 1937, 89 F.2d 128, 136 , where the defendant raised the same objection it was said: “ ‘ * * * It is too obvious for argument that hardly any other matter can better be regulated to the discretion of the trial court than that of safeguarding the court, counsel, jury, and spectators, and assuring the continued presence and attendanee of the accused at the trial. Absent incontrovertible evidence of hurt, the trial court should be permitted to use such means, to secure the named ends, as the nature of the case, the known criminal record, character, associates in crime, and reputation of the accused shall reasonably call for, and such is the rule enunciated in the few cases existing which deal with the question, * * * ’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Fundamental error, is such error as goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense. Morrison v. State, 37 Okl.Cr. 359 , 258 P. 1050 .” 87 Ariz. at p. 222 , 349 P.2d at p. 785 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * Under the law in this state the admissibility of a confession depends on whether it is freely and voluntarily made. (Citing cases.) If obtained through force, duress, or promise of immunity, it is inadmissible. Wagner v. State, 43 Ariz. 560 , 33 P.2d 602 . If it appears to the reasonable ' satisfaction of the trial court from the preliminary inquiry that the confession was not so obtained, it may admit the confession into evidence. Davis v. State, 41 Ariz. 12 , 15 P.2d 242 . However, if it appears to the reasonable satisfaction of the trial court that the confession was not freely given it should not at the trial before the jury permit the confession to be introduced into evidence.” (Citing cases.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hudson
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.