Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 760 P.2d 291 - State v. Shickles

State v. Shickles’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

100
cited by 100 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

97 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 100 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2026 · most notably Shannon v. United States (1994), State v. Killpack (2008)

97 state decisions — followed in 10 states

40019881990200020102020decided

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 Powell v. Texas · International Ass'n of Machinists v. Duckworth · California v. Curry · Yamanis v. United States · Sutherland v. United States

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

  1. “the strength of the evidence as to the commission of the other crime, the similarities between the crimes, the interval of time that has elapsed between the crimes, the need for the evidence, the efficacy of alternative proof, and the degree to which the evidence probably will rouse the jury to overmastering hostility.”
    36 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.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
    5 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.