Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 207 Neb. 118 - State v. Leisy

State v. Leisy’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably State v. Boppre (1990), State v. Robinson (2006)

28 state decisions

10019801990200020102020decided

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 North Carolina v. Alford · Santobello v. New York · United States v. Oates · United States v. Ammidown · Furtado v. Bishop

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

  1. “A statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, his intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The ruling of the court in rejecting the offer was correct .... The proponent did not make known to the adverse party the proposal to use the hearsay testimony. The giving of such notice is one of the requirements necessary to make such evidence admissible. The prosecutor did know of Mrs. Schafer’s statement and, because of her emotional condition, had agreed not to call her. He did not know, however, that the defense proposed to use her out-of-court statement. The defendant argues that, under these circumstances, the giving of the notice was unnecessary. Two opinions of the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals have held that the pretrial notice requirement is to be rigidly enforced. [Citations omitted.] Some courts have held otherwise. [Citation omitted.] We hold that the notice requirement is mandatory.”
    1 later decision 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.