Tyler v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably Conyers v. State (2002), 138 Md. App. 178 - State v. Jones (2001)
32 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 Zafiro v. United States · JEB v. Alabama Ex Rel. TB · Spencer v. Brown · Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Ass'n · Grandison 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rule 5-802.1. Hearsay exceptions — Prior statements by witnesses. The following statements previously made by a witness who testifies at the trial or hearing and who is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement are not excluded by the hearsay rule: (a) A statement that is inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, if the statement was (1) given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition; (2) reduced to writing and was signed by the declarant; or (3) recorded in substantially verbatim fashion by stenographic or electronic means contemporaneously with the making of the statement; * * * (c) A statement that is one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person;”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(b) Hearsay exceptions. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: (1) Former testimony. Testimony given as a witness in any action or proceeding or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of any action or proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. DULYX v. State
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.