State v. Just’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
318 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 318 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State v. Matt (1991), State v. Catsam (1987)
318 state decisions
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 People v. Kelley · State v. Spreigl · 14 Cal. 3d 864 - People v. Rincon-Pineda · State v. Billstrom · 21 Cal. 3d 284 - People v. Scott
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 318 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
44 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Romero · State v. Aakre“(a) Evidence of other crimes may not be received unless there has been notice to the defendant that such evidence is to be introduced. The procedures set forth in section 46-18-503 MCA should serve as guidelines for the form and content of such notice. Additionally, the notice to the defendant shall include a statement as to the purposes for which such evidence is to be admitted. (b) At the time of the introduction of such evidence, the trial court shall explain to the jury the purpose of such evidence and shall admonish it to weigh the evidence only for such purposes. (c) In its final charge, the court should instruct the jury in unequivocal terms that such evidence was received only for the limited purposes earlier stated and that the defendant is not being tried and may not be convicted for any offense except that charged, warning them that to convict for other offenses may result in unjust double punishment.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Stout · State v. Case“(1) similarity of crimes or acts; (2) nearness in time, and (3) tendency to establish a common scheme, plan, or system; and (4) the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the prejudice to the defendant. (Emphasis in original.)”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Sadowski · State v. Stout
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.