State v. Sevigny’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently January 2025
18 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 Crawford v. Washington · Aus v. Carter · Alicea v. Gagnon · State v. Conroy · State v. Bertram
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A [district] court must make explicit findings as to what evidence it relied upon regarding the factors and explain its reasons for either admitting or excluding the testimony so a defendant can be assured the required appraisal has been made.... ” The court must make specific findings of fact relevant to reliability and trustworthiness and explain how the facts support the court’s conclusion of admissibility. Non-detailed findings may be sufficient when there is an adequate factual basis in the offer of proof to support the court’s decision. On review, we are limited to reviewing the offer of proof made during, the pretrial hearing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Poulor · State v. Muhle“[i]f a defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness at trial, the admission of testimonial statements would not violate the Confrontation Clause.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Poulor · State v. Muhle““A district court’s decision to exclude evidence of an alibi under N.D.R.Crim.P. 12.1 is reviewable under the abuse of discretion standard. A court abuses its discretion if it acts unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously, or if it misinterprets or misapplies the law. When determining whether to allow alibi evidence when the notice requirements of Rule 12.1 have not been met, ‘a court ought to take into account, among other particulars of the case, the actual prejudice that will redound to the prosecution if the testimony is allowed and whether the defendant’s failure to inform was in good faith and for good cause.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kalmio
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.