Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 811 P2D 1004 - Monn v. State

Monn v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
2
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2010

12 state decisions

120199120002010decided

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 Jackson v. Denno · Douglas v. Alabama · Lawn v. United States · Romano v. United States · Namet 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"(b) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate him thereon, or the interests of justice otherwise require. This provision does not apply to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in Rule 801(d)(2)."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A judicial proceeding is said to be "ex parte when it is taken or granted at the instance and for the benefit of one party only, and without notice to, or contestation by, any person adversely interested." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 517 (5th ed.1979). An ex parte investigation is "[aln investigation conducted about a person who is not personally contacted or questioned." Id. at p. 517.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “(1) the record must demonstrate clearly what occurred at trial without resort to speculation; (2) a clear and unequivocal rule of law must have been violated in an obvious way; and (3) this violation must have adversely affected some substantial right of the accused.”
    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.