State v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
August 2019
most recently cited
11 state decisions
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he traditional rationale for allowing excited utterances to be admitted over a hearsay objection is that the `excitement caused by the startling event or condition temporarily stills the capacity for reflection' and thus is likely to produce `statements free of conscious fabrication.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The following are not excluded by [OEC 802, the hearsay rule], even though the declarant is available as a witness:”
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.