Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 910 F.2d 680 - Myatt v. Hannigan

Myatt v. Hannigan’s Empirical Analysis

910 F.2d 680 · 1990

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
6
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Swan v. Peterson (1993), United States v. Reddeck (1994)

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions

260199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Ohio v. Roberts · Pointer v. Texas · Bourjaily v. United States · Sumner v. Mata · Idaho v. Wright

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

  1. “Evidence of a statement which is made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter stated, is hearsay evidence and inadmissible except: (dd) Actions involving children. In a criminal proceeding or a proceeding pursuant to the Kansas juvenile justice code or in a proceeding to determine if a child is a child in need of care under the Kansas code for care of children, a statement made by a child, to prove the crime or that a child is a juvenile offender or a child in need of care, if: (1) The child is alleged to be a victim of the crime or offense or a child in need of care; and (2) the trial judge finds, after a hearing on the matter, that the child is disqualified or unavailable as a witness, the statement is apparently reliable and the child was not induced to make the statement falsely by use of threats or promises. If a statement is admitted pursuant to this subsection in a trial to a jury, the trial judge shall instruct the jury that it is for the jury to determine the weight and credit to be given the statement and that, in making the determination, it shall consider the age and maturity of the child, the nature of the statement, the circumstances under which the statement was made, any possible threats or promises that might have been made to the child to obtain the statement and any other relevant factor.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.