Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 55 OHIOST2D 191 - State v. Roberts

State v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024

3 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

160197819801990200020102020decided

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 Pointer v. Texas · California v. Green · Barber v. Page · Mattox v. United States · Government of the Virgin Islands v. Aquino

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

  1. “"We also think that Porter's [the declarant] preliminary hearing testimony was admissible as far as the Constitution is concerned wholly apart from the question of whether respondent had an effective opportunity for confrontation at the subsequent trial. For Porter's statement at the preliminary hearing had already been given under circumstances closely approximating those that surround the typical trial. Porter was under oath; respondent was represented by counsel — the same counsel in fact who later represented him at the trial; respondent had every opportunity to cross-examine Porter as to his statement; and the proceedings were conducted before a judicial tribunal, equipped to provide a judicial record of the hearings. Under these circumstances, Porter's statement would, we think, have been admissible at trial even in Porter's absence if Porter had been actually unavailable, despite good-faith efforts of the State to produce him. That being the case, we do not think a different result should follow where the witness is actually produced." 399 U.S. at 165 , 90 S.Ct. at 1938-1939 , 26 L.Ed.2d at 501 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[T]he trial judge could reasonably have concluded from Mrs. Isaacs' voir dire testimony that due diligence could not have procured the attendance of Anita Isaacs”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “goes no further than to suggest that cross-examination actually conducted at preliminary hearing may afford adequate confrontation for purposes of a later trial.”
    1 later decision 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.