Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 79 Haw. 128 - State v. Apilando

State v. Apilando’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
8
states following
July 2022
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably State v. Clark (1996), Lee v. State (2008)

35 state decisions

1201995200020102020decided

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 · Bourjaily v. United States · Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · Idaho v. Wright

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

  1. “[T]he confrontation clause restricts the range of admissible hearsay in two ways. First, the prosecution must either produce, or demonstrate the unavailability of, a declarant whose statement it wishes to use against a defendant. Second, upon a showing that the witness is unavailable, only statements that bear adequate indicia of reliability are admissible.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “divert[ed] the jury from its duty to decide the cease on the evidence, by injecting issues broader than the guilt or innocence of the accused under the controlling law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “when a defendant takes the stand to testify, his or her credibility can be tested in the same manner as any other witness.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.