State v. Erickstad’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Hansen v. Scott (2002), State v. Johnson (2001)
50 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 United States v. Olano · Henderson v. Kibbe · Jones v. United States · Hall v. City of Santa Barbara · State v. Olander
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Specific exceptions. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (17) Market Reports, Commercial Publications. Market quotations, tabulations, lists, directories, or other published compilations, generally used and relied upon by the public or by persons in particular occupations.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Shaw · State v. Shaw“If a defendant desires more comprehensive instructions on any phase of the case, he must submit written instructions with the request that they be given. If a party fails to make such a request he cannot predicate error upon omissions in the charge given. Counsel will not be excused for failing to comply with a rule to present requested instructions in writing merely because the trial judge indicates in advance that he will not give the instruction requested. The reason for the requirement for written instructions is that a trial judge must be allowed an opportunity to examine the substance of the requested instruction in order to facilitate a proper ruling on that request. The desired result is a ruling by the trial judge that will allow the instructions to fully and accurately inform the jury of the applicable law. Additionally, by requiring requested jury instructions to be in proper form, we, as a court of review, will be able to determine from the record the correctness of the trial court's ruling. Here, counsel failed to tender a written jury instruction on "conscious action." In fact, counsel attempted to shift his duty of drafting a specific instruction on conscious action to the judge. We hold that it was counsel's duty to draft a specific instruction on conscious action and to submit it to the trial judge. Because Olson did not submit a written jury instruction she may not predicate error upon the trial court's refusal to give the conscious-action instruction unless”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rittenour v. Gibson“a. Intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another human being; b. Causes the death of another human being under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; or c. Acting either alone or with one or more other persons, commits or attempts to commit [one of the enumerated crimes] and, in the course of and in furtherance of such crime or of immediate flight therefrom, the person or any other participant in the crime causes the death of any person.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Coppage
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.