State v. Lomack’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably State v. Coleman (1992), Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson/Couvillon v. Nebraska Department of Social Services (1995)
2 federal appellate · 33 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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · State v. Pierce · State v. Craig · Alliance National Bank & Trust Co. v. State Surety Co. · State v. Oldfield
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n a bench trial of a law action, including a criminal case tried without a jury, erroneous admission of evidence is not reversible error if other relevant evidence, admitted without objection or properly admitted over objection, sustains the trial court’s factual findings necessary for the judgment or decision reviewed; therefore, an appellant must show that the trial court actually made a factual determination, or otherwise resolved a factual issue or question, through use of erroneously admitted evidence in a case tried without a j ury.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cave · State v. Harms“(1) Determinations made regarding the speed of any motor vehicle based upon the visual observation of any peace officer, while being competent evidence for all other purposes, shall be corroborated by the use of a radio microwave, mechanical, or electronic speed measurement device. The results of such radio microwave, mechanical, or electronic speed measurement device may be accepted as competent evidence of the speed of such motor vehicle in any court or legal proceeding when the speed of the vehicle is at issue. Before the state may offer in evidence the results of such radio microwave, mechanical, or electronic speed measurement device for the purpose of establishing the speed of any motor vehicle, the state shall prove the following: (a) The radio microwave, mechanical, or electronic speed measurement device was in proper working order at the time of conducting the measurement; (b) The radio microwave, mechanical, or electronic speed measurement device was being operated in such a manner and under such conditions so as to allow a minimum possibility of distortion or outside interference; (c) The person operating the radio microwave, mechanical, or electronic speed measurement device and interpreting such measurement was qualified by training and experience to properly test and operate the radio microwave, mechanical, or electronic speed measurement device; and (d) The operator conducted external tests of accuracy upon the radio microwave, mechanical, or electronic speed m”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“To be relevant, evidence must be rationally related to an issue by a likelihood, not a mere possibility, of proving or disproving an issue to be decided.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Schrein
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.