State v. True’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
196 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 196 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably State v. Barry (1985), State v. Ouellette (1983)
196 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 United States v. Quinto · State v. Wright · United States v. Herring · State v. Pomerleau · Goldthwaite v. Sheraton Restaurant
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 196 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A prior consistent statement by the declarant whether or not under oath, is admissible only to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Swain · State v. Lewis““[Ejrror ... so highly prejudicial and so taintfing of] the proceeding as virtually to deprive the aggrieved party of a fair trial,” State v. Langley, 242 A.2d [688] at 690; “seriously prejudicial error tending to produce manifest injustice,” State v. Baker, 409 A.2d 216, 219 (Me.1979); and “injustice done to the defendant ... so great the Law Court cannot in good conscience let the conviction stand,” State v. True, 438 A.2d 460, 469 (Me.1981).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Morrison · State v. Davis“(4) Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment [are not excluded by the hearsay rule].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Leone · State v. Hebert
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.