Hernandez v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently June 2022
21 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 United States v. Thomas A. Warren, John L. Warren, Jr., Des. E. Schick and David Defina · United States v. Sykes · United States v. Warren · United States v. Farnham · United States v. Jackson
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At the request of a party, the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of or discuss testimony with other witnesses, and it may make the order on its own motion. This rule does not authorize the exclusion of (1) a party' who is a natural person, or (2) an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party' to be essential to the presentation of the party’s cause.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“'witness has such specialized expertise or intimate knowledge of the facts of the case that a party's attorney could not effectively function without the presence and aid of the witness'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Certified copies of judgments or commitments containing a defendant's name or a similar name may be introduced to prove the commission of prior felonies. Schlomer v. State, 580 N.E.2d 950, 958 (Ind.1991) (citing Andrews v. State, 536 N.E.2d 507 (Ind.1989)). While there must be supporting evidence to identify the defendant as the person named in the documents, the evidence may be circumstantial, Id.; see also Coker v. State, 455 N.E.2d 319, 322 (Ind.1983). If the evidence yields logical and reasonable inferences from which the finder of fact may determine beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a defendant who was convicted of the prior felony, then a sufficient connection has been shown. Pointer v. State, 499 N.E.2d 1087, 1089 (Ind.1986).”
2 later decisions 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.