Patterson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
1 district · 501 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 521 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Ortiz v. State (1976), 26 Cal. 3d 334 - People v. Chavez (1980)
1 district · 501 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 Glasser v. United States · Cree v. Goldstein · Strauder v. West Virginia · Hernandez v. Texas · Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co.
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 521 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'testimony in court or written evidence, of a statement made out of court, such statement being offered as an assertion to show the truth of matters asserted therein, and thus resting for its value upon the credibility of the out-of-court asserter.'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Miss Robinson and Mrs. Patterson were upon the witness stand at the time their out-of-court assertions were offered. Neither denied giving the statements attributed to her, nor did either profess ignorance of such statements. It was, therefore, not necessary for the truth of the out-of-court assertions to rest upon the credibility of persons not present and then subject to cross-examination concerning the statements. Under such circumstances, since the matters asserted were relevant to the issues, there was no reason to reject the statements, as substantive evidence, simply because they had been made at a time when the witnesses were not subject to cross-examination."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Considerable latitude is permitted to the trial judge in determining the admissibility of such evidence when a fair conflict appears between the State’s right to present relevant evidence and the defendant’s right to be protected from prejudice likely to be engendered from morbid and shocking displays. The question is, of necessity, one of balance, and the trial judges will be on guard against the natural propensities of the State sometimes to appeal to passions in its attempts to ob tain convictions.” Patterson v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 55 , 324 N.E.2d 482 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Webster v. State · James v. State
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.