Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 926 S.W.2d 29 - State v. Gray

State v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 2014

9 state decisions

40199620002010decided

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 Roviaro v. United States · Rugendorf v. United States · Joseph v. United States · Roberts v. Louisiana · Refre v. United States

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

  1. “The determination of whether a defendant can have a fair trial without disclosure of the identity of an informant rests within the sound discretion of the' trial court. State v. Gray, 926 S.W.2d 29, 32 (Mo.App.1996); State v. Shannon, 892 S.W.2d 761, 764 (Mo.App.1995). In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on this issue, the appellate court must balance the relevance and importance of disclosure to the defense against the State’s need for nondisclosure.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.