State v. Tlamka’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably State v. Dyer (1994), State v. McBride (1996)
32 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. Messersmith · State v. Cox · State v. Plant · State v. Jacob · State v. Watkins
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘[Statements need not be made contemporaneously with the exciting cause but “may be subsequent to it, provided there has not been time for the exciting influence to lose its sway and to be dissipated.” ’... ‘[T]he key requirement is spontaneity, a showing that the statement was made without time for conscious reflection.’ . . . However, the time interval between the startling event and the statements in question is not ‘of itself dispositive of the spontaneity issue.’ . . . The permissible length of time between the statement and the startling event is determined on the unique facts of each case.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“` "[T]he true test in spontaneous exclamations is not when the exclamation was made, but whether under all the circumstances of the particular exclamation the speaker may be considered as speaking under the stress of nervous excitement and shock produced by the act in issue....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘For a statement to qualify as an excited utterance, the following criteria must be established: (1) There must have been a startling event, (2) the statement must relate to the event, and (3) the statement must have been made by the declarant while under the stress of the event. . . . The key requirement is spontaneity, which “requires a showing the statements were made without time for conscious reflection.” ’ ” State v. Smith, 241 Neb. 311, 316-17 , 488 N.W.2d 33, 37 (1992) (quoting In re Interest of D.P.Y. and J.L.Y., 239 Neb. 647 , 477 N.W.2d 573 (1991)). See, also, 2 McCormick on Evidence § 272 (John W. Strong ed. 1992).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dyer
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.