Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2014 Ark. 306 - State v. Rainer

State v. Rainer’s Empirical Analysis

2014

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
1
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 62 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · California v. Trombetta · Crane v. Kentucky · Howard v. State · Gaines v. State

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

  1. “The Rule 37.1 petition came on for hearing today, July 22, 2013, and the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 1. No proper record was made of the motion in limine where evidence was ruled out in a pretrial conference in chambers about a year before trial. That violates Administrative Order No. 4 because the court had a duty to have it on the record. No lawyer requested it be on the record. 2. By agreement of the parties, the record was supplemented at the hearing with the testimony of defense counsel, the prosecutor, and the recollections of the court. This was a de fact [sic] “bystanders’s affidavit” where the court heard about three other incidents, one of which involved the alleged victim stabbing the defendant where he was hospitalized. There is a dispute, but it appears that he requested the state not to prosecute her for that. 3. At the conclusion of the state’s case, the motion should have been renewed because the context was more apparent, and the court likely would have granted it. 4. The testimony about the alleged victim having a propensity to use knives and to have previously stabbed defendant, too, on balance was probably more relevant than prejudicial and likely would have come in under [Arkansas Rule of Evidence] 403. (In any retrial, the scope of other such evidence is subject to review at retrial.) 5. Defendant argues that this denied him due process and a fair trial in violation of the constitutions. Rule 37.1(a)©. 6. The testim”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “the issue was raised at trial, that the circuit court erred in its ruling on the issue, and that an argument concerning the issue could have been raised on appeal to merit appellate relief.”
    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.