Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 315 Ark. 555 - Weger v. State

Weger v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

78
cited by 78 later decisions
1
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

78 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Barnes v. State (2001), Davis v. State (2002)

78 state decisions

4201994200020102020decided

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 Colorado v. Connelly · Moran v. Burbine · Boulden v. Holman · Scofield v. National Labor Relations Board · Beed v. State

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

  1. “The mere fact that a photograph is inflammatory or is cumulative is not, standing alone, sufficient reason to exclude it. (Citation omitted.) Even the most gruesome photographs may be admissible if they assist the trier of fact in any of the following ways: by shedding light on some issue, by proving a necessary element of the case, by enabling a witness to testify more effectively, by corroborating testimony, or by enabling jurors to better understand the testimony. (Citation omitted.) Of course, if a photograph serves no valid purpose and could be used only to inflame the juror’s passion, it should be excluded.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.