Ohio v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2,442 federal appellate · 154 district · 5,758 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10,108 later decisions (94 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Crawford v. Washington (2004), Brecht v. Abrahamson (1993)
2,442 federal appellate · 154 district · 5,758 state decisions — followed in 50 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. A case is still cited after being overruled — to note the reversal, distinguish it, or in dissent. 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 Bruton v. United States · Davis v. Alaska · Chambers v. Mississippi · Pointer v. Texas
Cited together with California v. Green · Dutton v. Evans · Crawford v. Washington · Pointer v. Texas · Idaho v. Wright
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 10,108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.”
800 later decisions quote this exact passage“"We need not consider whether defense counsel's questioning at the preliminary hearing surmounts some inevitably nebulous threshold of `effectiveness'.... [Under the `unusual' circumstances of Mancusi, supra, ] it was necessary to explore the character of the actual cross-examination to ensure that an adequate opportunity for full cross-examination had been afforded to the defendant. Cf. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. at 407 , 85 S.Ct. at 1069 . We hold that in all but such extraordinary cases, no inquiry into `effectiveness' is required. A holding that every case involving prior testimony requires such an inquiry would frustrate the principal objective of generally validating the prior testimony exception in the first place increasing certainty and consistency in the application of the Confrontation Clause...." 448 U.S. at 73, n. 12 , 100 S.Ct. at 2543, n. 12 , 65 L.Ed.2d at 612 .”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“cannot for any reason be produced at trial”
2 later decisions 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.