State v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
154 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably State v. Salazar (1997), State v. Manus (1979)
154 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 Babich v. United States · H. K. Porter Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · Stokes v. United States · State v. Gunzelman · State v. Dorsey
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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. Required instructions. The court must instruct the jury upon all questions of law essential for a conviction of any crime submitted to the jury. D. Objections. Except as provided in Paragraph A of this rule, for the preservation of error in the charge, objection to any instruction given must be sufficient to alert the mind of the court to the claimed vice therein, or in case of failure to instruct on any issue, a correct written instruction must be tendered before the jury is instructed. [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Osborne“Prior consistent statements traditionally have been admissible to rebut charges of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive but not as substantive evidence. Under the rule they are substantive evidence. The prior statement is consistent with the testimony given on the stand, and, if the opposite party wishes to open the door for its admission in evidence, no sound reason is apparent why it should not be received generally.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Vialpando“[a] statement is not hearsay if ... [t]he declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is ... consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Barr
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.