Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 462 A.2d 1171 - State v. Caouette

State v. Caouette’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
3
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently November 2023

20 state decisions

9019831990200020102020decided

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. Anderson · State v. LeClair · State v. Rich · State v. Jansen · State v. Fournier

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

  1. “(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. A statement or confession offered against the accused in a criminal case, made by a codefendant or other person implicating both himself and the accused, is not within this exception.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[a] person is guilty of felony murder if acting ... with one or more other per sons in the commission of ... robbery ..., he or another participant in fact causes the death of a human being, and such death is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of such commission.... (Emphasis supplied).”
    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.