State v. Clausell’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably State v. Brister (2002), State v. Buck (2006)
48 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
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (§ 102 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978)
Relies on Doyle v. Ohio · Anderson v. Charles · Fletcher v. Weir · State v. Finley · State v. Weaver
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The reason for the contemporaneous objection rule ... is to allow the district court an opportunity, where possible, to remedy any error and we will not put a trial court in error where it has not been given such a chance to correct itself, absent an exception to the rule.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order to preserve an objection to the admission of evidence for appeal, the objecting party must make a timely and specific objection on the record.”
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.