State v. Lamure’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably State v. Gallegos (2007), State v. Abeyta (1995)
41 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 Bowsher v. Merck & Co. · Lee v. Lee · Matter of Adoption of Doe · Gallegos v. Citizens Insurance Agency · State v. Chouinard
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he central concern of rule 403 is whether the probative value of the evidence sought to be introduced is ‘substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.’ ” The drug-related evidence was probative on the issue of motive; it explained why Ridlehuber might have a sawed-off shotgun in his residence---- The danger of unfair prejudice from admission of the drug-related evidence, by contrast, was great. The clandestine manufacture of controlled substances like methamphetamine and amphetamine is the kind of offense for which the jury may feel the defendant should be punished regardless of whether he is guilty of the charged offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rael“One cannot ignore the long tradition of courts and commentators expressing fear that jurors are too likely to give undue weight to evidence of a defendant's prior misconduct and perhaps even to convict the defendant solely because of a belief that the defendant is a bad person.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wrighter“is justified by concern that character evidence when used circumstantially is likely to be given more probative value than it deserves and may lead the fact-finder to punish a bad person regardless of the evidence of what happened in the specific case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wrighter
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.