State v. Bolte’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably State v. Profit (1999), State v. Kennedy (1998)
55 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 State v. Spreigl · State v. Billstrom · State v. Schweppe · State v. Post · State v. Filippi
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. In a criminal prosecution, such evidence shall not be admitted unless the other crime, wrong, or act and the participation in it by a relevant person are proven by clear and convincing evidence.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lewis · State v. Shannon“In determining admissibility, the trial court should engage in a balancing of factors such as the relevance or probative value of the evidence, the need for the evidence, and the danger that the evidence will be used by the jury for an improper purpose,- or that the evidence will create unfair prejudice pursuant to Minn. R. Evid. 403.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Montgomery · State v. Head“[I]f there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant if the evidence had not been admitted, then the error in admitting the evidence was prejudicial error.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jaros · State v. Byers
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.