State v. Oster’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably State v. Smith (1999), State v. Goodroad (1997)
39 state decisions
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 Colorado v. Connelly · Haynes v. Washington · United States v. Bailey · 15 Cal. 3d 709 - People v. Gauze · State v. Best
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If, at any time during the course of a proceeding, it is brought to the attention of a court that a party has failed to comply with an applicable discovery provision, the court may order such party to permit the discovery or inspection, grant a continuance, or prohibit the party from introducing evidence not disclosed, or it may enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances. The court may specify the time, place, and manner of making the discovery and inspection and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hofman · State v. Sorenson“COUNT I FORGERY: That on or about the 2nd day of August, 1990, in the County of Butte, State of South Dakota, DANNY D. GOODROAD, did, with intent to defraud, falsely make, complete or alter a written instrument of any kind, or passed such an instrument, in violation of SDCL 22-39-36; and, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided against the peace and dignity of the State of South Dakota. SDCL 22-39-36 provides: Any person who, with intent to defraud, falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument of any kind, or passes such an instrument is guilty of forgery. Forgery is a Class 5 felony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Goodroad“The elements of the offense of first degree burglary, as charged in Count I of the information, each of which the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, are: 1) that the defendant at the time and place alleged in the information, unlawfully entered or unlawfully remained in a structure described as ..., 2) [t]hat said structure was an occupied structure, 3) that the defendant unlawfully entered or unlawfully remained therein with the intent to commit the crime of rape, 4) that the defendant committed the offense in the nighttime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. DeNoyer
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.