Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2006 MT 81 - State v. Buck

State v. Buck’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
2
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

74 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Seltzer v. Morton (2007), State v. Derbyshire (2009)

74 state decisions

560200620102020decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Gideon v. Wainwright · Simmons v. United States · Johnson v. State of New Jersey

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

  1. “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a longstanding distinction exists between Rule 404(b) “other crimes” evidence and evidence of a defendant’s misconduct which is inseparably related to the alleged criminal act. Where the evidence at issue is not wholly independent or unrelated to the charged offense, it is not “other crimes” evidence and the prosecution is not required to comply with the notice requirements of Just and Matt .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “we still adhere to the rule that invocation of that right [to counsel] does not depend on the use of any particular words; rather, it depends on the evident purpose of the suspect's statement, as viewed in light of the circumstances and in light of the rule that requests for counsel must be construed broadly”
    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.