State v. Harper’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 2024
11 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 Barker v. Wingo · Blanton v. General Electric Credit Corp. · Sigmond v. United States · Thomas v. United States · Arthur J. Nathaniel v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections
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.
“admissions” in the Rules of Evidence is somewhat misleading. A statement of a criminal defendant need not be inculpatory to qualify as an admission pursuant to this rule. See Field & Murray, Maine Evidence § 801.5 at 8-19.1 (3d ed. 1994). . M.R.Evid. 801(d)(2) states in pertinent part: “A statement is not hearsay if: ... The statement is offered against a party and is (A) his own statement, .... ” . Our assertion that a “thirty month delay in furnishing the trial transcripts is presumptively prejudicial,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Witham“[D]eterminations of witness credibility are the exclusive province of the [fact-finder].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ames v. Ames
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.