State v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Staubes v. City of Folly Beach (2000), State v. Taylor (1998)
58 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 American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Jusino v. Brown · Ingalls v. Roosevelt County · Deboue v. Louisiana · Johnson v. Derwinski
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the ultimate goal behind preservation of error rules is to insure that an issue raised on appeal has first been addressed to and ruled on by the trial court”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Neuman · State v. Smith“It is obvious the real purpose, the sole purpose, of this evidence was, in general, to prove the appellant was a sexual pervert, and, in particular, to prove that his perversion was pedophilia, and to do so on the basis of reading material found in his possession some of which would offend a substantial number of jurors, prejudicing them against the appellant without regard to whether it proved anything against him.... If this material is supposed to provide a picture of the appellant as a pedophile, such profile evidence is inadmissible in criminal cases to prove either guilt or innocence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bunger“[T]he motive for the alleged crimes involved in the present case [is] apparent. A person commits or attempts to commit [a sexual offense] for the obvious motive of sexual gratification. Since motive cannot be deemed to have been a material issue at [defendant’s] trial ... testimony [as to prior bad acts] was not admissible to prove [intent].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Fonseca
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.