Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 343 NW2D 158 - State v. Clarke

State v. Clarke’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
11
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably State v. Budis (1991), 337 Pa. Super. 548 - Commonwealth v. Black (1985)

2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions — followed in 11 states

1201984199020002010decided

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 Davis v. Alaska · Chambers v. Mississippi · United States v. Nixon · Evans v. Alabama · United States v. Kasto

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

  1. “(A) ... upon the issue of whether the accused was or was not, with respect to the alleged victim, the source of semen or injury; or (B) ... upon the issue of whether the alleged victim consented to the sexual behavior with respect to which sexual abuse is alleged.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Even relevant evidence is not constitutionally required to be admitted if the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in a criminal case in which a person is accused of sexual abuse, reputation or opinion evidence of the past sexual behavior of an alleged victim of such sexual abuse is not admissible. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in a criminal case in which a person is accused of sexual abuse, evidence of a victim’s past sexual behavior other than reputation or opinion evidence is also not admissible, unless such evidence other than reputation or opinion evidence is: (1) ... constitutionally required to be admitted; or (2) admitted in accordance with subdivision “c” and is evidence of: (A) past sexual behavior with persons other than the accused, offered by the accused upon the issue of whether the accused was or was not, with respect to the alleged victim, the source of semen or injury; or [[Image here]] (c)(3) If the court determines on the basis of [a rule 112 hearing] that the evidence which the accused seeks to offer is relevant and that the probative value of such evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice, such evidence shall be admissible in the trial to the extent an order made by the court specifies evidence which may be offered and areas with respect to which the alleged victim may be examined or cross-examined. (d) For purposes of this rule, the term “past sexual behavior” means sexual behavior other than the sexual behavior with respect to which sexual abuse is alleged.”
    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.