Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 508 A.2d 861 - Diaz v. State

Diaz v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2015 · most notably Medina v. California (1992), Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996)

37 state decisions

1501986199020002010decided

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 Dusky v. United States · Bates v. State Bar · County of Los Angeles v. Chavez-Salido · Morris v. Gressette · United States v. DiGilio

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.

  1. “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.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Whenever the court is satisfied, after hearing, that an accused person, because of mental illness or mental defect, is unable to understand the nature of the proceedings against him, or to give evidence in his own defense or to instruct counsel on his behalf, the court may order the accused person to be confined and treated in the Delaware State Hospital until he is capable of standing trial....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Other crimes, wrongs or acts: Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity of absence of mistake or accident.”
    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.