Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2004 ND 176 - State v. Lee

State v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
October 2025
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 2025

8 state decisions

60200420102020decided

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 Crawford v. Washington · Passley v. State · State v. Taylor · State v. Thiel · State v. Ash

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

  1. “A party may not later take advantage of irregularities that occur during a trial unless the party objects at the time they occur, allowing the court to take appropriate action, if possible, to remedy any prejudice that may result. “ ‘The initiative is placed on the party, not on the judge,’ ” to object to offered evidence. City of Fargo v. Erickson, 1999 ND 145, ¶ 22 , 598 N.W.2d 787 (Sandstrom, J., concurring specially) (quoting Charles McCormick, McCormick on Evidence § 52, at 200-201 (4th ed.1992)). A party’s failure to object, therefore, is a waiver upon appeal of any ground of complaint against its admission.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Miller has failed to cite a single case holding that a reconfiguration of the courtroom which does not physically obstruct the defendant and witness’s view of each other violates the Confrontation Clause, requires a Craig hearing, or requires a cautionary instruction. Under these circumstances, Miller has failed to demonstrate that the procedure employed in this case constituted a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.