Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 825 SW2D 612 - Hellstrom v. Commonwealth

Hellstrom v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
4
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2016

22 state decisions

90199220002010decided

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 Morgan v. Foretich · State v. Rimmasch · Drumm v. Commonwealth · Estep v. Commonwealth · Souder v. Commonwealth

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

  1. ““[These witnesses] are not ... experts at discerning the truth. [They] are trained to accept facts provided by their patients, not to act as judges of patients’ credibility.” State v. Rimmasch, 775 P.2d 388 (Utah 1989).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a group of signs or symptoms that collectively indicate or characterize a disease, psychological disorder, or other abnormal condition.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[make] a judgment as to whether prejudicial effect outweighs . . . probative value, taking into account that when such statements are not made for the purpose of treatment they have `less inherent reliability than evidence admitted under the traditional common-law standard underlying the physician treatment rule.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.