Stone v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably Modesitt v. State (1991), Plan-Tec, Inc. v. Wiggins (1983)
1 federal appellate · 56 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Bruton v. United States · Patterson v. State · Ortiz v. State · Lewis v. State
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It appears that the rule drawn from Patterson may well be in need of reconsideration. To the extent that it has, on some occasions, been used to support the admission of out-of-court statements as a mere substitute for available in-court testimony, it has been misapplied."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. D. H. v. J. H. · Watkins v. State“"Most recently in Samuels v. State, (1978) Ind., 372 N.E.2d 1186 , this Court condemned unjustifiable extensions of the Patterson rule and warned that the use of prior statements of a trial witness by the proponent of the witness in lieu of available and direct testimony of such witness will not [sic] longer be sanctioned."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. D. H. v. J. H. · Modesitt v. State“"In the case before us, the use of the statements made by [Codefendant] James is justified for the purpose of impeaching James. James was in court, on the witness stand and under oath. The State brought forth the text of his statements only after he testified in a manner inconsistent with them, and therefore they were admissible in evidence under the Patterson rule as originally conceived. They were not therefore inadmissible as hearsay nor did their admission deny appellant the right of confrontation."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Rose 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.