State v. Ray’s Empirical Analysis
1930
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1997
8 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 Commonwealth v. Slavski · Ogilvie v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. · State v. Stevens · 17 Ala. App. 511 - Butler v. State · State v. Ewert
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The rule is that, where a fact can be ascertained only by examination of voluminous records, a competent witness who has perused the entire mass may state the net result of his examination. Wigmore on Evidence (2d Ed.) sec. 1230; Jones' Commentaries on Evidence (1st Ed.) sec. 206; State v. Olson, 75 Utah 583 , 287 Pac. 181 ; State v. Ewert, 52 S.D. 619 , 219 N.W. 817 ; State v. Clark, 47 Idaho 750 , 278 Pac. 776 ; State v. Colson, 325 Mo. 510 , 30 S.W. (2d) 59 ; Stevens [Stephens] v. United States, 9 Cir., 41 F. (2d) 440.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McGrath v. Dubs““We think the report of a deputy state examiner as to the result of his investigation of a county office, while possibly admissible for certain purposes in a proper case, is not a public or official book or record, within the meaning of section 10570 and that it is not admissible as evidence of the facts stated therein. The reports are simply intended for the guidance of the county commissioners and county attorney and, in themselves, are not a source of evidence as to the facts stated in them.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The contention is also made that, under the circumstances of this case, the judgment ought not to be reversed even though the report was improperly received in evidence. It is asserted by the state that the admission of the report, if erroneous, was harmless. We think this contention must be sustained. Technical errors and exceptions which do not affect substantial rights furnish no ground for reversal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McGrath v. Dubs
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.