Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 516 A2D 201 - State v. Profenno

State v. Profenno’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
January 2005
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. True · State v. Langley · State v. Thibodeau · State v. Baker · State v. Nichols

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. “Under the obvious error standard, we review the admissibility of controverted testimony only when the error complained of is so highly prejudicial and so taints the proceeding as virtually to deprive the aggrieved party of a fair trial. In making such a determination we apply our best judgment to all the circumstances of the case at hand to determine whether inadmissible evidence received at trial was in its probable effect upon the jury a seriously prejudicial error tending to produce manifest injustice.”
    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.