State v. Randall’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 2023
16 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 Green v. Bock Laundry MacHine Co. · Campbell v. Greer · Cummings v. Malone · United States v. Baylor · United States v. Fawley
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining whether to exclude evidence under Rule 403, courts should “ ‘give the evidence its maximum reasonable probative force and its minimum reasonable prejudicial value.’ ” See id. [State v. Zimmerman, 524 N.W.2d 111, 115 (N.D.1994) ] (quoting 1 Jack B. Weinstein and Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence § 403[03], pp. 403-49, 403-51 (1994)). “Generally, any doubt about the existence of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading, undue delay, or waste of time, should be resolved in favor of admitting the evidence, taking necessary precautions by way of contemporaneous instructions to the jury followed by additional admonition in the charge.” Id. Therefore, the burden is on the objecting party to show that relevant evidence should be excluded under Rule 403.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hamilton v. Oppen · State v. Bell
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.