Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 737 P.2d 200 - State v. Hackford

State v. Hackford’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
2
states following
October 2019
most recently cited

43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently October 2019 · most notably State v. Menzies (1994), State v. Bishop (1988)

43 state decisions

1601987199020002010decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · California v. Green · Harrington v. California

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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'the importance of the witness's testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case'”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “where the error in question amounts to a violation of a defendant's right of confrontation guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution, its harmfulness is to be judged by a higher standard, i.e., reversal is required unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    1 later decision 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.