Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2009 MT 27 - State v. Derbyshire

State v. Derbyshire’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

134
cited by 134 later decisions
3
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

128 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 134 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State v. Daniels (2011), State v. District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District of Montana (2010)

128 state decisions

840200920102020decided

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 Michelson v. United States · State v. Just · State v. Van Kirk · State v. Matt · State v. LaMere

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

  1. “Where the declaration, act, or omission forms part of a transaction which is itself the fact in dispute or evidence of that fact, such declaration, act, or omission is evidence as part of the transaction.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Guill , ¶ 36. All Federal circuits recognize the legitimacy of admitting properly limited relevant evidence that is intrinsic to or inextricably intertwined with a charged crime. Guill , ¶ 28. ¶ 39 We have cautioned that the transaction rule should not be used to admit evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts to”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[I]f the tainted evidence was not admitted to prove an element of the offense, then the admission of the evidence will be deemed harmless only if the State demonstrates that the quality of the tainted evidence was such that there was no reasonable possibility it might have contributed to the conviction.”
    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.