Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 181 Ariz. 87 - State v. Salazar

State v. Salazar’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably State v. Roscoe (1996), State v. Hughes (1997)

25 state decisions

1401994200020102020decided

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 United States v. Dansker · State v. McFarlin · State v. Treadaway · State v. Stuard · State v. Oliver

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

  1. “because of the risk of improper use, the trial judge has a special obligation to insure that [the] probative value of the evidence for the purpose offered is sufficiently great in the context of the case to warrant running that risk. The discretion of the trial judge under Rule kOS to exclude otherwise relevant evidence because of the risk of prejudice should find its most frequent application in this area.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Except as provided in Rule 404(c)[,] evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action 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
  3. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    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.