Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 271 NW2D 534 - State v. Jones

State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

110
cited by 110 later decisions
1
states following
September 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 108 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably State v. Brouillette (1979), State v. Bias (1988)

2 federal appellate · 108 state decisions

73019781980199020002010decided

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 Balistrieri v. United States · State v. West · State v. Senske · State v. Stewart · Bernard Lyon Frishman v. Mildred M. Stonebraker

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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) the impeachment value of the prior crime, (2) the date of the conviction and the defendant’s subsequent history, (3) the similarity of the past crime with the charged crime (the greater the similarity, the greater the reason for not permitting use of the prior crime to impeach), (4) the importance of defendant’s testimony, and (5) the centrality of the credibility issue.”
    29 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year * * * and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect, or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A person who has been attacked and who is exercising his right of self-defense is not required to retreat and he not only may stand his ground and defend himself against the attack but may also pursue his assailant until he has secured himself from danger if that course appears to him, and would appear to a reasonable person in the same situation, to be reasonably necessary, and this is his right even though he might more easily have gained safety by withdrawing from the scene.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.