Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 811 SW2D 582 - Reed v. State

Reed v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably United States v. Huffhines (1992), Sandoval v. State (2001)

2 federal appellate · 42 state decisions

270199120002010decided

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 Todd v. State · United States v. Dancy · Banco de Espana v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York · Amoco Production Co. v. United States · United States v. Jimenez Lopez

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

  1. “Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following: (1) Domestic public documents under seal. A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or any state, district, Commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution. [[Image here]] (4) Certified copies of public records. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilation in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification, by certificate complying with paragraphs (1), (2), or (3) of this rule or complying with any statute or court rule prescribed pursuant to statutory authority.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(a) General provision. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. (b) Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule: (7) Public records and reports. Evidence that a writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office, or a purported public record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, is from the public office where items of this nature are kept.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “merely requires some evidence sufficient to support a finding that evidence in question is what the proponent claims.”
    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.