Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 484 F.2d 1196 - Shaffer v. Field

Shaffer v. Field’s Empirical Analysis

484 F.2d 1196 · 1973

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
9
states following
March 1994
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 1994 · most notably 47 Cal. 3d 888 - People v. Farmer (1989), 109 Ill. 2d 216 - People v. Neal (1985)

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 16 state decisions

220197319801990decided

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. Adams · Shaffer v. Field · Wilson v. Commercial Securities Co. · United States v. Moore

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

  1. ““1. Admission of the spontaneous statements of the dying victim did not violate petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. ‘The determination of whether, in a particular case, the application of a recognized exception to the hearsay rule satisfies the requirements of the Confrontation Clause . calls for an examination of all the circumstances of the case. The relevant factual inquiry is whether, under the circumstances, the unavailability of the declar-ant for cross-examination deprived the jury of a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the extrajudicial declaration.’ United States v. Adams, 446 F.2d 681, 683 (9th Cir. 1971). The trustworthiness of spontaneous statements is established on grounds distinct from the general credibility of the declarant. The declarant’s unavailability did not deprive the jury of a basis for evaluating the truth of the declarations.” 484 F.2d at 1197 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.