Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 289 Kan. 727 - State v. Laturner

State v. Laturner’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
3
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

77 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably State v. McCaslin (2011), State v. Dukes (2010)

77 state decisions

710200920102020decided

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 Boykin v. Alabama · Crawford v. Washington · Ohio v. Roberts · Chambers v. Mississippi · Pointer v. Texas

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

  1. ““Various formulations of this core class of‘testimonial’ statements exist: ‘ex parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent—that is, material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially,’. . . ‘extrajudicial statements . . . contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions,’ [citation omitted]; ‘statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial’ [citation omitted].” 541 U.S. at 51-52 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Determining a statute's constitutionality is a question of law subject to unlimited review. But under the separation of powers doctrine, this court presumes statutes are constitutional and resolves all doubts in favor of a statute's validity. Courts must interpret a statute in a way that makes it constitutional if there is any reasonable construction that would maintain the legislature's apparent intent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “two classes of witnesses—those against the defendant and those in his favor .... [T]here is not a third category of witnesses, helpful to the prosecution, but somehow immune from confrontation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.