State v. Rojas’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2015
10 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 Ohio v. Roberts · Idaho v. Wright · Alford v. United States · City of Burlington v. Dague · GAF Corp. v. United States
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The statement must have circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent-to those inherent in the firmly rooted exceptions in Rule 803; 2. The statement must be offered as evidence of a material fact; 3. The statement must be more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; 4. The general purpose of the Rules and the interests of justice must best be served by admission of the statement into evidence; and 5. The proponent of the evidence must give advance notice specified in the rule.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.