State v. Post’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably United States v. Arnold (2007), State v. Kemp (2007)
2 federal appellate · 21 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 State v. Bernard · People v. Hughes · Boliek v. Missouri · United States v. Moore · State v. Singh
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This exception is based on the human “experience that, under certain external circumstances of physical shock, a stress of nervous excitement may be produced which stills the reflective faculties and removes their control, so that the utterance which then occurs is a spontaneous and sincere response to the actual sensations and perceptions already produced by the external shock. Since this utterance is made under the immediate and uncontrolled domination of the senses, and during the brief period when considerations of self-interest could not have been brought fully to bear by reasoned reflection, the utterance may be taken as particularly trustworthy (or, at least, as lacking the usual grounds of untrust-worthiness); and thus as expressing the real tenor of the speaker’s belief as to the facts just observed by him; and may therefore be received as testimony to those facts.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The accident cases referred to in the Singh case are those situations where the defendant as the actor causing the death is undisputed but the issue raised is whether he acted intentionally or accidentally. Defendant here denied any participation in the death of his wife and denied that he was present when the incident which caused it occurred. Under those facts the decedent's particular state of mind that she was unhappy with her husband has no relevance." (emphasis supplied).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kelley · State v. Revelle“some independent proof that the event could have occurred,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kemp
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.