Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 174 Vt. 377 - State v. Lipka

State v. Lipka’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
3
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

62 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 214 Ill. 2d 127 - People v. Wilson (2005), State v. Oscarson (2004)

62 state decisions

310200220102020decided

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 Kotteakos v. United States · Estelle v. McGuire · Maryland v. Craig · Mattox v. United States · Coy v. Iowa

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

  1. “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “"The State has the burden to show precisely how the proffered evidence is relevant to the theory advanced, how the issue to which it is addressed is related to the disputed elements in the case, and how the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The seating arrangement devised by the trial court in this case indisputably deprived defendant of the opportunity to observe the witness's demeanor during her testimony, contrary to this [Confrontation Clause] requirement.”
    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.