Delaware v. Van Arsdall’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
3,430 federal appellate · 202 district · 4,720 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11,066 later decisions (96 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Arizona v. Fulminante (1991), Neder v. United States (1999)
3,430 federal appellate · 202 district · 4,720 state decisions — followed in 49 states
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 Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · Gideon v. Wainwright · Bruton v. United States
Cited together with Davis v. Alaska · Chapman v. State of California · Delaware v. Fensterer · Rose v. Clark · Jackson v. Virginia
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 11,066 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case.”
885 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]rial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on ... cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.”
31 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Slovik v. Yates · Slovik v. Yates
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.