State v. Powers’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently October 2011 · most notably State v. Batson (1992), State v. Harding (1983)
2 federal appellate · 28 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 Chapman v. State of California · Bruton v. United States · Harrington v. California · Fahy v. Connecticut · Lutwak v. United States
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 31 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 an exception to the general rule that evidence of a person’s character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. Rule 404 M.R.Evid. A trait of character is to be distinguished from habit. ‘A habit is a person’s regular response to a repeated specific situation.’ Rule 406, M.R.Evid. Habit or rou tine practice may be proved by testimony in the form of an opinion or by specific instances of conduct sufficient in number to warrant a finding that the habit existed or that the practice was routine. “ ‘Character may be thought of as the sum of one’s habits though doubtless it is more than this. But unquestionably the uniformity of one’s response to habit is far greater than the consistency with which one’s conduct conforms to character or disposition. Even though character comes in only exceptionally as evidence of an act, surely any sensible man in investigating whether X did a particular act would be greatly helped in his inquiry by evidence as to whether he was in the habit of doing it.’ McCormick on Evidence Section 162, at 341. ‘'Under Rule 406, M.R.Evid., the acts habitually performed by Sigler in response to his perceived need for discipline of the child were admissible. As a matter of habit, his discipline of the child was excessively harsh.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Murray“unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial.”
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.