Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 619 P2D 875 - Blades v. State

Blades v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2016

11 state decisions

801980199020002010decided

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 Barker v. Wingo · Atnip v. State · Bauhaus v. State · State v. Robinson · Jones v. State

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

  1. “[t]he word ‘common’ implies that although there may be various crimes, all said crimes must come under one plan . . . whereby the facts of one crime tend to establish the other such as where the commission of one crime depends upon or facilitates the commission of the other crime, or where each crime is merely a part of a greater overall plan. . . . [E]vidence of other offenses should never be admitted under this exception when it shows that the accused committed crimes wholly independent of that charged.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he party offering demonstrative evidence must show to the satisfaction of the trial court that the circumstances of its custody provide reasonable certainty that there has been no alteration or tampering with the evidence. However, this burden is not so strict that all possibility of alteration, no matter how slight, must be negated by the party offering such evidence. [[Image here]] Where there is any speculation that tampering or commingling could have occurred it is proper to admit the evidence and let what doubt there may be go to the weight rather than render the evidence completely inadmissible.”
    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.