Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 651 N.E.2d 326 - Kellems v. State

Kellems v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 2016

8 state decisions

40199520002010decided

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 Chambers v. Mississippi · Washington v. Texas · Perez v. Jones · Bergman v. United States · State v. Owings

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

  1. “The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies. Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a fundamental element of due process of law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]estimony given as a witness ... in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered ... had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination [is not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    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.