State v. Maestas’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably State v. Woodward (1995), State v. Varela (1999)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 73 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 Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · 3 Cal. 3d 981 - People v. Green · State v. Nance · United States v. Librach · United States v. Insana
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) Excited utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“N.M.R.Evid. 803(3), provides: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: ****** (3) Then existing mental, emotional or physical condition. A statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification or terms of declarant’s will * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Johnson“First. “There must be some shock, startling enough to produce this nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting.” Second. “The utterance must have been before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent, i.e., while the nervous excitement may be supposed still to dominate and the reflective powers to be yet in abeyance.” Third. “The utterance must relate to the circumstances of the occurrence preceding it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Woodward
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.