Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 400 NW2D 550 - State v. Ueding

State v. Ueding’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
February 2006
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2006

10 state decisions

60198719902000decided

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 California v. Trombetta · State v. Langlet · Kellogg v. State · State v. Soppe · Carstens v. Rans

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

  1. “[A spoliation instruction] is not appropriate however unless the evidence suggests that the destruction of the evidence was intentional because only then could it amount to “an admission by conduct of the weakness of one’s case.””
    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.