State v. Mueller’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 2012
10 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 · Scharffe v. Perkins · Lewis v. Adamson · Marquez v. Texas · Danial Siebert v. Alabama
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Missouri courts have held that where a witness is impeached by proof of inconsistent statements, then proof of a statement made by a witness prior to the inconsistent statement, which is consistent with the trial testimony is admissible to rehabilitate the witness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he law of Missouri does not restrict the use of prior consistent statements to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, but permits such statements for whatever rehabilitative value they may have.”
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.