Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1999 ND 138 - State v. Leinen

State v. Leinen’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 2023

11 state decisions

601999200020102020decided

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 Tome v. United States · State v. Hart · State v. Messner · State v. Neufeld

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

  1. “First, the declarant must have testified and been subject to cross-examination about the statement. Second, the statement must be offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. And finally, the statement must be a prior consistent statement made before the charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive arose.”
    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.