Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 458 NW2D 288 - State v. Haugen

State v. Haugen’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently February 2020

17 state decisions

1101990200020102020decided

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 Davis v. Alaska · Pointer v. Texas · Douglas v. Alabama · Greene v. McElroy · 31 Cal. 3d 815 - People v. Hogan

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

  1. ““The determination of whether or not evidence is relevant, and the balancing of the evidence’s probative value against its prejudicial effect are also matters for the trial court to resolve in the exercise of its sound discretion. See [State v.] Huwe, [ 413 N.W.2d 350 (N.D.1987)]; State v. Schimmel, 409 N.W.2d 335 (N.D.1987); State v. Kringstad, 353 N.W.2d 302 (N.D.1984). On appeal, we will not overturn a trial court’s decision regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence on the ground of relevancy unless the trial court abused its discretion. See [State v.] Haugen, [ 448 N.W.2d 191 (N.D.1989)]; State v. Newnam, 409 N.W.2d 79 (N.D.1987); State v. Olson, 290 N.W.2d 664 (N.D.1980). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable manner. State v. Kunkel, 452 N.W.2d 337 (N.D.1990); State v. Erban, 429 N.W.2d 408 (N.D.1988).””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “On appeal, we will not overturn a trial court's decision regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence on the ground of relevancy unless the trial court abused its discretion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. In Re Bv
  3. “A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable manner.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. In Re Bv

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.