State v. Blankenship’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 208 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 211 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably State v. Purlee (1992), State v. Parker (1994)
2 federal appellate · 208 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 Batson v. Kentucky · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Chambers v. Mississippi · California v. Green · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos.
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 211 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“were originally made and subsequently offered at trial under circumstances that provided considerable assurance of their reliability.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In order to be entitled to an evidentia-ry hearing, a movant must 1) cite facts, not conclusions, which, if true, would entitle movant to relief; 2) the factual allegations must not be refuted by the record; and 8) the matters complained of must prejudice the movant. Belcher v. State, 801 S.W.2d 372, 375 (Mo.App. 1990). An evidentiary hearing is not required if the motion court determines that the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief. Rule 29.15(g). Appellate review of a motion court’s action is limited to a determination of [whether] the findings and conclusions of ... the motion court are clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(j).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Goodwin v. State · State v. Cobb“Inconsistent statements are available as substantive evidence, and may be used just as soon as the inconsistency appears from the testimony. The only necessary foundation is the inquiry as to whether the witness made the statement, and whether the statement is true. Any requirement of additional foundation would dilute the effect of the statute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cravens · State v. Lyons
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.