State v. Rivera’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 133 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably State v. Pierre (2006), State v. Kirby (2006)
3 federal appellate · 133 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Crawford v. Washington · Ohio v. Roberts · Pointer v. Texas · Dutton v. Evans · Idaho v. Wright
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`nontestimonial hearsay statements may still be admitted as evidence against an accused ... if [they] satisf[y] both prongs of the [ Ohio v. ] Roberts [, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980),] test.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he determination of whether to grant a request for a continuance is within the discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. . . . A reviewing court is bound by the principle that [e]very reasonable presumption in favor of the proper exercise of the trial court's discretion will be made. . . . To prove an abuse of discretion, an appellant must show that the trial court's denial of a request for a continuance was arbitrary. . . . There are no mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to violate due process. The answer must be found in the circumstances present in every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied. . . . In addition, we consistently have acknowledged that [o]ur role as an appellate court is not to substitute our judgment for that of a trial court that has chosen one of many reasonable alternatives.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[w]here nontestimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the Framers’ design to afford the States flexibility in their development of hearsay law — as does Roberts, and as would an approach that exempted such statements from Confrontation Clause scrutiny altogether.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Manuel · State v. Dedman
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.