State v. Dixon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 14 state decisions

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. ““There are two components to relevant evidence: materiality and probative value. Materiality looks to the relation between the propositions for which the evidence is offered and the issues in the case. If the evidence is offered to help prove a proposition which is not a matter in issue, the evidence is immaterial. What is ‘in issue,’ that is, within the range of the litigated controversy, is determined mainly by the pleadings, read in the light of the rules of pleading and controlled by the substantive law---- “The second aspect of relevance is probative value, the tendency of evidence to establish the proposition that it is offered to prove. ... A fact that is ‘of consequence’ is material, and evidence that affects the probability that a fact is as a party claims it to be has probative force. . . . Such evidence often is said to have ‘logical relevance,’ while evidence lacking in probative value may be condemned as ‘remote’ or ‘speculative.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lowe

2. “[A] judicial abuse of discretion exists when a judge, within the effective limits of authorized judicial power, elects to act or refrain from action, but the selected option results in a decision which is untenable and unfairly deprives a litigant of a substantial right or a just result in matters submitted for disposition through a judicial system.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Fahlk

3. “[T]rial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Stark