State v. Sorg’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably State v. Billstrom (1967), State v. Reed (2007)
36 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. Spreigl · State v. Mathiasen · State v. Wofford · State v. Lupino · State v. Rasmussen
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“association with persons involved in the crime in such a way as to suggest joint participation”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Clark · State v. Smith““Evidence connecting the defendant to other crimes is as a rule not admissible, principally because it tends to justify to the jury a finding of guilt irrespective of present charges. State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 [1957]. It is generally understood, however, that there are some exceptions. State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112 , 114 N. W. (2d) 267 [1962]. Evidence of a separate crime may be admitted if it is reasonably closely related in scheme, pattern, and time to the act charged and its admission is largely within the discretion of the trial court. State v. DePauw, 246 Minn. 91 , 74 N. W. (2d) 297 [1955].””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Saucedo“scientific analysis of physical objects connected with the alleged crime; reported admissions by the accused; suspicious and unexplained conduct of the accused either before or after the offense. If the accused testifies, inadequacies in his testimony may be corroborative of the assertions of the accomplice, but the failure to testify does not, in itself, provide the required evidentiary support.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Harris
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.