State v. Schaal’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
101 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably State v. Chaney (1998), State v. Storey (1995)
101 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 Strickland v. Washington · Pointer v. Texas · California v. Green · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Evidence that another person had an opportunity or motive for committing the crime for which the defendant is being tried is not admissible without proof that such other person committed some act directly connecting him with the crime.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[tjhat in criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to ... meet the witnesses against him face to face.” Mo. Const. art. 1, sec. 18(a). The defendant's point relied on cites this provision, but he does not further differentiate the Missouri from the federal claim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“By any calculation, § 492.304 satisfies a defendant’s right to confrontation. The statutory requirement that the child witness be available to testify at trial, under oath, and subject to the fact finder’s observation of demeanor, [citation omitted], guarantees that right. The statute also ensures that the recorded statement is made without attorneys being present and without ‘questioning calculated to lead the child to make a particular statement or act in a particular way.’ Further, the jury is able to judge the videotaped, recorded testimony for themselves; they do not receive it secondhand. Appellant’s facial Sixth Amendment attack is not valid.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Crossland
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.