Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 88 OHIOST3D 59 - State v. Robb

State v. Robb’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

207
cited by 207 later decisions
1
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 198 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 207 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably State v. LaMar (2002), State v. Jones (2001)

6 federal appellate · 198 state decisions

1050200020102020decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · State v. Jenks · Hudson v. Palmer · State v. Bradley

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

  1. “'[T]he admission or exclusion of relevant evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.'”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “challenge them to try one last time to reach a consensus.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith. A juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror, only after some outside evidence of that act or event has been presented. However a juror may testify without the presentation of any outside evidence concerning any threat, any bribe, any attempted threat or bribe, or any improprieties of any officer of the court. A juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror concerning a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying will not be received for these purposes.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.