Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 522 NE2D 362 - Baxter v. State

Baxter v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
7
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Harrison v. State (1995), Reaves v. State (1992)

1 federal appellate · 40 state decisions

2201988199020002010decided

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 Faretta v. California · Chambers v. Mississippi · Harris v. New York · In re Oliver · Taylor v. Illinois

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

  1. “[Certified copies of judgments or commitments containing the same or similar name as the defendant may be introduced to prove the commission of prior felonies, [but] there must be other supporting evidence to identify defendant as the same person named in the documents. This proof of identity may be in the form of circumstantial evidence. A sufficient connection between the documents and the defendant is made if the evidence yields logical and reasonable inferences from which the trier of fact may determine it was indeed the defendant who was convicted of the two felonies alleged.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Lewis v. State · Devore v. State
  2. “their failure does not deprive the State of sufficient time and information to investigate and respond.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Washington v. State · Washington v. State
  3. “is not intended 'to compel the exclusion of evidence or mandate retrials for purely technical errors.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Washington v. State · Griffin v. State

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.