Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 409 NW2D 846 - State v. Kasper

State v. Kasper’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
3
states following
December 2008
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 2008

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 State v. Doughman · State v. Lindahl · State v. McAdoo · State v. Wakefield · State v. Casady

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. “We are not prepared to establish any requirement that the state call the Spreigl witnesses to testify at the hearing to determine the admissibility of the Spreigl evidence. The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether or not to require this in a particular case and defendant is always free to challenge the exercise of that discretion on post-trial appeal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[MJost trial judges generally use the offer of proof procedure at the Spreigl hearing. [The Court sees] nothing wrong with this or any reason for requiring a mini-trial on the issue.”
    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.