Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 539 N.W.2d 214 - State v. Ford

State v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

2 district · 53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Lilly v. Virginia (1999), State v. Roberts (2000)

2 district · 53 state decisions

2901995200020102020decided

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 Williamson v. United States · Conway v. Statesman Mortgage Co. · Poland v. Arizona · Easter House v. United States · Mansell v. Mansell

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

  1. “In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he trial court’s error in admitting Wy-vonia Williams’ statements relating to [El-Shabazz] require[s] reversal only if the admission was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In the past where we have found the weight of the evidence is so great that it justifies the verdict regardless of the erroneous admission, we have concluded the erroneous admission was harmless. Similarly, in this case, we conclude that the weight of the evidence is so great that the admission of this information was at most harmless.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Corroborating evidence may be secured from the defendant’s association with those involved in the crime in such a way as to suggest joint participation, as well as from the defendant’s opportunity and motive to commit the crime and his proximity to the place where the crime was committed. The defendant’s entire course of conduct may be looked to for corroborating circumstances. If his connection to the crime may be fairly inferred from those circumstances, the corroboration is sufficient.”
    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.