Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 157 Vt. 387 - State v. Robar

State v. Robar’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
10
states following
August 2014
most recently cited

2 district · 49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably State v. Newsome (1996), 12 Cal. 4th 252 - People v. Cuevas (1995)

2 district · 49 state decisions — followed in 10 states

270199120002010decided

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 Burks v. United States · United States v. Owens · 128 Ill. 2d 66 - People v. Flores · Chambers v. State · State v. Derouchie

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

  1. “Recorded Recollection. — A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable him to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in his memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. If admitted, the memorandum or record may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) The document must pertain to matters about which the declarant once had knowledge; (2) The declarant must now have an insufficient recollection as to such matters; (3) The document must be shown to have been made by the declarant or, if made by one other than the declarant, to have been examined [and adopted] . . . when the matters were fresh in [her] memory.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[f]or purposes of this case, it is ... important to distinguish between admissibility and sufficiency. Evidence that is admissible as bearing on a fact in issue, including the guilt of the defendant, may be insufficient standing alone to convict.”
    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.