State v. Clay’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Ridley v. Commonwealth (1979), State v. Mark (1979)
45 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 State v. Fetters · State v. Williams · State v. Allnutt · State v. Wright · Ferris v. Riley
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The general rule is that unless the reasons for an objection are obvious one attempting to exclude evidence whether the attempted exclusion is by objection or motion has the duty to indicate the specific grounds to the court so as to alert the judge to the question raised and enable opposing counsel to take proper corrective measures to remedy the defect, if possible."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Maurer · State v. Nimmo““ ‘The word “incompetent” as applied to evidence means no more than inadmissible, and thus cannot be said to state a ground of objection.’ McCormick on Evidence, Second Edition, section 52. It is condemned for lack of precision. “As respects objection to testimony the terms ‘immaterial and irrelevant’ are used interchangeably; but ‘immaterial’ more precisely denotes evidence which is offered to prove a proposition not at issue, while ‘irrelevant’ denotes evidence which does not logically tend to establish any material proposition. [Citation]. U * * * “The objections, ‘irrelevant and immaterial,’ when admissibility of evidence is challenged in the trial court on either of those grounds are sufficiently specific to raise the issue in this court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“While the wording [incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial] may appear to be a “catch-all,” it strikes basically at the materiality of offered proof and its relevancy. It is questionable whether other words could be more specific to raise these issues than those employed in the general objection. State v. Clay, 213 N.W.2d at 477 , quoting Ladd, “Objections, Motions and Foundation Testimony,” 43 Cornell L.Q. at 546.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nepple v. Weifenbach
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.