State v. Cermak’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Scruggs v. State (1992), State v. Buchanan (1988)
47 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 Lawrence Metze v. New York · Montellano v. United States · State v. Brouillette · State v. Caldwell · State v. Underwood
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant further claims that his counsel waived his right to be present at an in camera competency hearing of some of the non-family child witnesses. The record shows the appellant was clearly informed by his privately-retained counsel and by the trial court of his constitutional right to remain at that in camera hearing, and he, with full knowledge, voluntarily waived the right. With respect to in camera hearings concerning the competency of other child witnesses, appellant exercised his constitutional right to be present.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Moll v. State · State v. Thompson“If a rule is promulgated pursuant to this section which is in conflict with a statute, the statute shall thereafter be of no force and effect. Notwithstanding any rule, however, the following statutes remain in full force and effect: (a) Statutes which relate to substantive criminal law, found in chapters 609, 617, and 624, except for sections 609.115 and 609.145. (emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Johnson · State v. Lopez“A child under ten years of age is a competent witness unless the court finds that the child lacks the capacity to remember or to relate truthfully facts respecting which the child is examined. A child describing any act or event may use language appropriate for a child of that age.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brovold · State v. Carver
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.