State v. Blom’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably State v. Leake (2005), State v. Blanche (2005)
47 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 Strickland v. Washington · Faretta v. California · Jackson v. Denno · Santobello v. New York · Chambers v. Mississippi
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) notice is given that the state intends to use the evidence; (2) the state clearly indicates what the evidence is being offered to prove; (3) the evidence is clear and convincing that the defendant participated in the other [crime, wrong, or act]; (4) the Spreigl evidence is relevant and material to the state’s case; and (5) the probative value of the Spreigl evidence is not outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Campbell · State v. McLeod“Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn ... or of aw offer to plead guilty ... to the crime charged or any other crime or of statements made in connection with any of the foregoing pleas or offers, is not admissible in any ... criminal ... action, case, or proceeding whether offered for or against the person who made the plea or offer.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown · State v. Brown“Concerned by what he regarded to be the unusual circumstances of the plea agreements and in an attempt to safeguard his due process rights, Burrell attempted through discovery to obtain the details of the state’s plea- ■ negotiations with Tyson and Williams. The district court refused to compel discovery stating that doing so would have violated the attorney-client privilege and because plea negotiations are inadmissible under the Minnesota Rules of Evidence. While we share concerns, for making plea negotiations- public, we conclude that the district court erred in' its analysis. Although attorney-client privilege may attach to communications between the codefendants and their attorneys, no such privilege existed”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Burrell
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.