State v. Bowman’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably State v. Blankenship (1992), State v. McMillin (1990)
2 federal appellate · 42 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 Ohio v. Roberts · California v. Green · Douglas v. Alabama · Lee v. Illinois · Noyd v. Bond
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.
“Notwithstanding any other provisions of law to the contrary, a prior inconsistent statement of any witness testifying in the trial of an offense under chapter 565, 566 or 568, RSMo, shall be received as substantive evidence, and the party offering the prior inconsistent statement may argue the truth of such statement.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cravens · State v. Motley“[t]he old rule about impeachment of one’s own witness is inappropriate, in view of the statute [§ 491.074], Inconsistent statements are available as substantive evidence, and may be used just as soon as the inconsistency appears from the testimony. The only necessary foundation is the inquiry as to whether the witness made the statement, and whether the statement is true. Any requirement of additional foundation would dilute the effect of the statute.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cravens · State v. Holmes“Don't worry about it. We took care of him.”
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.