State v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1913
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently December 1976
15 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. Keehn · State v. Ward · Cole v. Dorr · State v. Bussey · 15 Cal. App. 732 - People v. Wolfrom
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Upon a motion for a new trial an effort was made in behalf of the defendants to require the jurors to testify as to the considerations by which the jury were influenced in arriving at their verdict. Objections to the questions were rightly sustained on the ground that they related to matters essentially inhering in the verdict itself. (L. & W. Rly. Co. v. Anderson, 41 Kan. 528 , 21 Pac. 588 ; The State v. Keehn, 85 Kan. 765, 779 , 118 Pac. 851 .)””
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.