Moon v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Wildermuth v. State (1987), Willis v. State (1985)
46 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Ohio v. Roberts · California v. Green · Sumner v. Mata · Dutton v. Evans · Mancusi v. Stubbs
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he Confrontation Clause operates in two separate ways to restrict the range of admissible hearsay..... [W]hen a hearsay declarant is not present for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause normally requires a showing that he is unavailable. Even then, his statement is admissible only if it bears adequate “indicia of reliability.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Garlick““[T]he privilege of confrontation [has not] at any time been without recognized exceptions, as for instance dying declarations or documentary evidence____ The exceptions are not even static, but may be enlarged from time to time if there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule.””
1 later decision 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.