Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2001 MT 213 - State v. Detonancour

State v. Detonancour’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
2
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State v. Derbyshire (2009), State v. Garron (2003)

38 state decisions

220200120102020decided

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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Sandstrom v. Montana · Mullaney v. Wilbur · State v. Van Kirk · State v. Weeks

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

  1. “flirtatious behavior is not, contrary to [the defendant's] opinion, an invitation to engage in sexual relations. An examination into the nuances of the victim's interactions with the defendant days before an alleged rape would effectively put the victim on trial. Not only is this evidence irrelevant to the issue of consent, it is precisely the harm that the rape shield statute is designed to prevent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Admissibility under the transaction rule is 'predicated on the jury's right to hear what transgressed immediately prior and subsequent to the commission of the offense charged, so that they may evaluate the evidence in the context in which the criminal act occurred.'”
    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.