Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 384 NW2D 450 - State v. Doughman

State v. Doughman’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
states following
November 2009
most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently November 2009 · most notably State v. Flores (1988), State v. Rainer (1987)

41 state decisions

310198619902000decided

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 State v. Spreigl · State v. Billstrom · State v. Ture · State v. Pieschke · State v. Sweeney

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

  1. “[I]n order for such evidence to be admissible the trial court must determine that there is “clear and convincing” evidence that the defendant participated in the crimes or bad acts sought to be admitted. * * * The court must also determine that the evidence of prior crimes or bad acts is “relevant and material to the state’s case.” * * * In addition, it must rule that the probative value of the evidence outweighs any potential for “unfair prejudice.””
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “admissible to prove the current accusation against a defendant when such evidence tends to establish a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of similar crimes “so related to each other that proof of one or more of such tends to establish the [current] accusation.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In Spreigl, we recognized that the introduction of evidence of prior crimes or bad acts may result in the jury’s convicting the accused, not because the accused is guilty of the current charge, but because he or she may have escaped punishment for previous offenses or may have performed previous acts that are similar to the current charge.”
    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.