Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 180 Minn. 450 - State v. Sweeney

State v. Sweeney’s Empirical Analysis

1930

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
November 2016
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2016 · most notably Evans v. United States (1992), State v. Spreigl (1965)

1 federal appellate · 54 state decisions

150193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Logan v. United States · Egan v. United States · State v. Durnam · State v. Monroe · State v. Thaden

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

  1. ““The general rule in a criminal case is that evidence which in any manner shows or tends to show that the accused has committed another crime independent of that for which he is on trial is inadmissible. The reason is obvious and the rule should be rigorously enforced. The rule, however, like most rules, has certain exceptions not to be stated categorically but among which evidence of other crimes is admissible to prove the accusation when it tends to establish (1) motive, (2) intent, (3) absence of mistake or accident, (4) the identity of the accused, (5) sex crimes, (6) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of similar crimes so related to each other that proof of one or more of such tends to establish the accusation.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““* * * All these transactions were corrupt and were for the purpose of corruptly obtaining money through the abuse of a public trust. This was the common aim. Evidence of such other crimes is admissible, not to establish the other crimes, but as confirmation of the evidence tending to convict defendant of the crime for which he is on trial. * * *””
    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.