Seward v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Byron Nelson Griggs v. State (2016), State v. Kromah (2013)
31 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 Tome v. United States · Distajo v. Doctor's Associates, Inc. · State v. Michaels · State v. Scherzer · United States of America v. Ralph Winchenbach Jr
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Determining whether the trial court abused its discretion involves consideration of whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did, and whether it acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.' " Id. , (quoting Lancaster v. State, 2002 WY 45 , ¶ 11, 43 P.3d 80 , 87 (Wyo. 2002) ). Specifically, with regard to child witness competency determinations, "[w]e do not presume to place ourselves in the shoes of the trial court in these cases by reading a cold record. The trial court sees the witness' facial expressions, hears inflections in her voice and watches her mannerisms during examination. These observations are a vital part of the ultimate ruling on competency.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“'understand, receive, remember and narrate impressions and is sensible to the obligations of the oath taken before testifying.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[WJhere there is a proper objection, the "trial court should consider whether having numerous authority figures trained to ree-ognize sexual abuse appear at trial is actually a trial strategy of preparing a multitude of self-serving, biased, inflammatory, video, audio, and written statements for trial; having the witness testify; and then introducing into evidence these consistent statements made prior to testifying. See Baum v. State, 745 P.2d 877, 882 (Wyo. 1987) (Cardine, J. and Urbigkit, J., specially concurring). Such a trial strategy could render the statements irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, particularly if the consequence of repeating the same testimony several times unduly emphasizes that testimony over all other testimony in the case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Tombroek v. State · Jones v. State
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.