State v. Moeller’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably United States v. Beasley (1996), State v. Smith (1999)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 51 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 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Gregg v. Georgia · Furman v. Georgia · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Zant v. Stephens
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 57 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 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.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jones · State v. Steichen“If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) Whether the intended purpose for offering the other acts evidence is relevant to some material issue in the case (factual relevancy); and (2) Whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect (legal relevancy).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Jones · State v. Steichen
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.