Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 100 Nev. 38 - Crew v. State

Crew v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
2
states following
June 2015
most recently cited

2 district · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably Crawford v. State (2005), Rogers v. State (1985)

2 district · 35 state decisions

2301984199020002010decided

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 Wong Sun v. United States · Davis v. Alaska · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Michigan v. Tucker · United States v. Henry

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

  1. ““Hearsay” means a statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless: 2. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is: (a) Inconsistent with his testimony; (b) Consistent with his testimony and offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. . . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “1. When any part of a writing or recorded statement is introduced by a party, he may be required at that time to introduce any other part of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other relevant parts. 2. This section does not limit cross-examination.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Mlle duration of a conspiracy is not limited to the commission of the principal crime, but can continue during the period when coconspirators perform affirmative acts of concealment,”
    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.