Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2009 ND 163 - State v. Schmeets

State v. Schmeets’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

15 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas · State v. Micko · State v. Brown · State v. Ramsey · State v. Christensen

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

  1. “‘ (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove- a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. ' ,(2) Permitted Uses;, Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. The prosecutor must: (A) provide reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence that the prosecutor .intends to offer at trial; and . (B) do so before trial or during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ T) the court must look to the purpose for which the evidence is introduced; 2) the evidence of the prior act or acts must be substantially reliable or clear and convincing; and 3) in criminal cases, there must be proof of the crime charged which permits the trier of fact to establish the defendant’s guilt or innocence independently on the evidence presented, without consideration of the evidence of the prior acts.’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.