Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 355 Md. 528 - Klauenberg v. State

Klauenberg v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

188
cited by 188 later decisions
2
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

188 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 188 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Ware v. State (2000), Southern Management Corp. v. Taha (2003)

188 state decisions

9301999200020102020decided

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 Soberon v. United States · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · Nebraska v. Wyoming · Payless Wholesale Distributor, Inc. v. Albert Culver (P.R.) Inc. · Nebraska v. Wyoming

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

  1. ““[T]he general theme running through [the case law] is that a bad act is an activity or conduct, not necessarily criminal, that tends to impugn or reflect adversely upon one’s character, taking into consideration the facts of the underlying lawsuit.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, common scheme or plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““(a) Objections to Evidence. An objection to the admission of evidence shall be made at the time the evidence is offered or as soon thereafter as the grounds for objection become apparent. Otherwise, the objection is waived. The grounds for the objection need not be stated unless the court, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, so directs. The court shall rule upon the objection promptly. When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court may admit the evidence subject to the introduction of additional evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition. The objection is waived unless, at some time before final argument in a jury trial or before the entry of judgment in a court trial, the objecting party moves to strike the evidence on the ground that the condition was not fulfilled.” (Emphasis added.)”
    2 later decisions 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.