State v. McLain’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently October 1999 · most notably State v. Wallace (1988), State v. Thomas (1954)
84 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 of Arizona v. Guerrero · Hash v. State of Arizona · 24 Cal. App. 440 - People v. Scott · 28 Cal. App. 597 - Nicholson v. Leatham · Soto v. Territory of Arizona
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * In this assignment of error we have what is commonly called an excited utterance, or a spontaneous exclamation to which the term of ‘res gestae’ is sometimes applied. An excited utterance to come within the exception of the hearsay rule must have three requisites: 1. There must be a startling event. 2. The words spoken must be spoken soon after the event so as not to give the person speaking the words a time to fabricate. 3. The words spoken must relate to the startling event. Wigmore, Sec. 1750, Vol. 6, p. 142. In this case, all the elements are present and therefore its admissiblity [sic] is unquestioned. * * * ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * Any act or declaration of defendant tending to show a desire or purpose on his part to have illicit relations with the prosecutrix or any solicitation or representation made by him to excite a similar desire on the part of his victim, or to overcome her natural aversion to wantonness, would be relevantly and clearly connected with the crime and therefore admissible.” 74 Ariz. at 136 , 245 P.2d at 281 .”
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.