State v. Barden’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
1 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently July 2002
1 district · 12 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 Joseph Skilken & Co. v. City of Toledo · Wilson v. United States · United States v. Barrett · United States v. Metz · United States v. Satterfield
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Hearsay Exceptions. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: [3] Statement Against Interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject him to civil or criminal liability or to render invalid a claim by him against another or to make him an object of hatred, ridicule, or disgrace, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Priest“RULE 16. DISCOVERY BY THE DEFENDANT ****** (d) Sanctions for Noncompliance. If the attorney for the State fails to comply with this rule, the court on motion of the defendant or on its own motion may take appropriate action, which may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following: requiring the attorney for the State to comply, granting the defendant additional time or a continuance, relieving the defendant from making a disclosure required by Rule 16A, prohibiting the attorney for the State from introducing specified evidence and dismissing charges with prejudice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dube
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.