Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 125 F.3d 315 - Neuman v. Rivers

Neuman v. Rivers’s Empirical Analysis

125 F.3d 315 · 1997

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
6
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably 23 Cal. 4th 225 - People v. Ayala (2000), Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp. (1999)

21 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions

3701997200020102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Johnson v. Zerbst · Bruton v. United States · Thomas v. Arn · Ohio v. Roberts

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

  1. “the objections directed the district judge's attention to specific issues decided by the magistrate contrary to Kelly's position,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Adoption can be manifested by any appropriate means, such as language, conduct, or silence.... If the statements are viewed as the defendant's own, they constitute admissions properly characterized as non-hearsay under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2).” Neuman v. Rivers, 125 F.3d 315, 320 (6th Cir.1997). Because the Court finds that Rimtec adopted Mr. Asami’s statement as an admission, defendants’ argument that the statement is a”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the admission of out-of-court statements of unavailable hearsay declarants pursuant to 'firmly rooted' exceptions to the hearsay rule does not violate the Confrontation Clause, because the statements are presumed to bear adequate indicia of reliability.”
    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.