Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 OHIOST3D 5 - State v. Muttart

State v. Muttart’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

236
cited by 236 later decisions
4
states following
July 2025
most recently cited

236 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 236 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably 153 Ohio St. 3d 497 - State v. Beasley (2018), State v. Arnold (2010)

236 state decisions

1350200720102020decided

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 Crawford v. Washington · Ohio v. Roberts · Davis v. Washington · Idaho v. Wright · White v. Illinois

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

  1. “[r]egardless of whether a child less than ten years old has been determined to be competent to testify pursuant to Evid.R. 601, the child's statements may be admitted at trial as an exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to Evid.R. 803(4) if they were made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[s]tatements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[s]tatements made to medical personnel for purposes of diagnosis or treatment are not inadmissible under Crawford, because they are not even remotely related to the evils that the Confrontation Clause was designed to avoid.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.