Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 888 F.2d 1124 - Taylor v. Dawson

Taylor v. Dawson’s Empirical Analysis

888 F.2d 1124 · 1989

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
3
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 2018

2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

201989199020002010decided

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 Benton v. Maryland · United States v. Jorn · Arizona v. Washington · Illinois v. Somerville · United States v. Josef Perez

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

  1. “If the trial court thought that the testimony about [decedent]'s bad acts was reaching the point where it might unfairly prejudice the prosecution, it was up to the court to make that determination known to defense counsel. Fundamental fairness required nothing less-for otherwise, counsel would have no way of knowing that further testimony along this line might result in a mistrial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “One cannot read the transcript of Ms. Taylor's aborted trial without experiencing a sense of amazement when, without any apparent warning at all, the trial court suddenly declares a mistrial because the jury has heard a snatch of testimony which, as we know from the subsequent opinions of Kentucky's appellate courts, would ordinarily be admissible .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “instead of granting the prosecutor's motion ..., the court told the prosecutor he could object as the evidence came in, with the court ruling when it was seen how the evidence developed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.