State v. Canales’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
99 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably State v. Kitchens (2011), State v. Hampton (2009)
99 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 · Rhode Island v. Innis · Liteky et al United States · State v. Golding · Patterson v. New York
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[B]ecause constitutional claims implicate fundamental rights, it . . . would be unfair automatically and categorically to bar a defendant from raising a meritorious constitutional claim that warrants a new trial solely because the defendant failed to identify the violation at trial. Golding strikes an appropriate balance between these competing interests: the defendant may raise such a constitutional claim on appeal, and the appellate tribunal will review it, but only if the trial court record is adequate for appellate review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kitchens“The reason for the rule is obvious: to permit a party to raise a claim on appeal that has not been raised at trial-after it is too late for the trial court or the opposing party to address the claim-would encourage trial by ambuscade, which is unfair to both the trial court and the opposing party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[c]onsideration of ... evidence for the first time on appeal, without the benefit of effective state rebuttal or trial court determinations of credibility and fact, would usurp the trial court's role as the finder of fact”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. ARTHUR H.
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.