Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 114 Nev. 867 - Roever v. State

Roever v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
April 2013
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 2013

12 state decisions

60199820002010decided

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 Lord Electric Co. v. United States · Lawrence v. United States · Petrocelli v. State · United States v. Stockton · Tinch v. State

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

  1. “1. Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: (a) Evidence of his character or a trait of his character offered by an accused, and similar evidence offered by the prosecution to rebut such evidence ....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “1. In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry may be made into specific instances of conduct.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “so inflammatory, speculative, and utterly fantastic as to bear practically no probative value”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.