United States v. NB’s Empirical Analysis
59 F.3d 771 · 1995
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably State v. Merriam (2003), Bugh v. Mitchell (2003)
30 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1153
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Olano · Glasser v. United States · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Idaho v. Wright
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 46 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 the twenty-three specified exceptions listed 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 purposes of the Federal Rules and the interest of justice must best be served by the admission of the statement into evidence; ' (5) The proponent of the evidence must give the adverse party the notice specified within the rule.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A statement not specifically covered by Rule 803 or 804 but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.