Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2000 MT 332 - State v. Hart

State v. Hart’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
12
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably State v. Singh (2002), State v. Duran (2006)

2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions — followed in 12 states

360200020102020decided

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 Portuondo Superintendent Fishkill Correctional Facility v. Agard · State v. Finley · United States v. Sanchez · State v. Weaver · Gonzalez-Navarro v. Bonilla

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

  1. “(1) The other crimes, wrongs or acts must be similar. (2) The other crimes, wrongs or acts must not be remote in time. (3) The 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 with such character; but may be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. (4) Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading of the jury, considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “clarifying a particular line of testimony, in evaluating the credibility of a defendant who is claiming that everyone else is lying, or when a witness flatly denies the occurrence of events.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “initially demonstrate that a fundamental right constitutionally guaranteed to him was implicated by the plain error which he now claims.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.