State v. Padilla’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably State v. Baca (1997), State v. Sarracino (1998)
31 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 California v. Green · Yamanis v. United States · California ex rel. State Lands Commission v. United States · Good Hope Chemical Corp. Creditors' Committee v. Koerver · Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defendants argue on appeal that [the witness’s] testimony is not covered by [Rule] 11 — 801(D)(1)(b). We see no error in the admission of this testimony since, as we have discussed, the evidence is admissible under [Rule] 11-803(E). See State v. Mata Y Rivera, 115 N.M. 424, 429 , 853 P.2d 126, 131 (Ct.App.[1993]) (“[Evidence admissible for one purpose is not to be excluded because it is inadmissible for another purpose.”).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Allison
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.