State v. Settle’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2016
10 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
Relies on Armedo-Sarmiento v. United States · United States v. McMillan · Seales v. State · State v. McGee · State v. Spica
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.
““Although there was no showing that [Copeland] had ever done that before and obtained a good recording, or that he had received training on the procedure, or that the process was so elementary that no training was required, the fact of an audible and understandable recording was made remains. That fact would tend to establish that [Copeland] was competent to operate the machine, a conclusion analogous to the holding in United States v. Moss, [ 591 F.2d 428 (8th Cir.1979) ].” State v. Settle, 670 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Mo.App.1984).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Murphy
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.