State v. Pike’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably State v. Maestas (2012), Mosley v. Wilson (1996)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 28 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 State v. Eaton · State v. Crank · Honda v. People · State v. Rhodes · Martin 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A) rebuttable presumption of prejudice arises from any unauthorized contact during a trial between witnesses, attorneys or court personnel and jurors which goes beyond a mere incidental, unintended, and brief contact.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“have long taken a strict approach in assuring that the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial not be compromised by improper contacts between jurors and witnesses, attorneys, or court personnel.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bossert · State v. Tafuna“Pike identified two reasons for the existence of the rebuttable presumption. First, it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove how an improper contact may have influenced a juror.... The second reason for the presumption is that an improper juror contact creates an appearance of collusion or impropriety in the proceedings from which the judicial process may suffer in the eyes of the public. If improper juror contact is not prevented, a doubt may exist in the mind of the losing party, and the public as a whole, as to whether the defendant was given a fair trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Shipp
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.