Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 490 N.W.2d 838 - State v. Gardner

State v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
October 1995
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Rosenberg v. Comerica Bank · Austin Products Co. v. Workers' Compensation Insurers Rating Association of Minnesota · Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission · Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Rasmussen · United States v. Miller

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

  1. “[Iowa rule of evidence] 801(d)(1)(B) does not speak to a time sequence, therefore, we agree with the latter approach [holding a time requirement should not be imposed strictly as a rigid per se rule but should be one of several factors in determining the relevance of a prior consistent statement]. We believe that a flexible approach will allow the trial court to determine whether a consistent statement will aid the jury in determining whether the witness told the truth. The court can consider the possibility of inducement to change the inconsistent statement; the corroborative value of the prior consistent statement; and the length of time between the statements.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(d) Statements Which Are Not Hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if— (1) Prior Statement by Witness. The declar-ant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is ... (B) consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive”
    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.