State v. Manus’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 186 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 195 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably State v. Rodriguez (1980), State v. Garcia (1992)
7 federal appellate · 186 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Chambers v. Maroney · Sedillo v. United States · United States v. Chadwick
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 195 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Since the element of intent involves the state of mind of the defendant it is seldom, if ever, susceptible to direct proof, and may be proved by circumstantial evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Genuine rebuttal evidence is not simply a reiteration of evidence in chief but consists of evidence offered in reply to new matters. The plaintiff, therefore, is not allowed to withhold substantial evidence supporting any of the issues which it has the burden of proving in its case in chief merely in order to present this evidence cumulatively at the end of defendant’s case. Ascertaining whether the rebuttal evidence is in reply to new matters established by the defense, however, is a difficult matter at times. Frequently true rebuttal evidence will, in some degree, overlap or coalesce with the evidence in chief. Therefore, the question of admissibility of evidence on rebuttal rests largely on the trial court’s discretion. Citing, State v. White, 74 Wash.2d 386 , 444 P.2d 661 (1968).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Birchett v. State“The failure to disclose a witness, however, will not aid Manus unless he can show that he was prejudiced thereby. (Citations omitted). In the case now before us, Manus’ counsel was given an opportunity to depose Seig prior to his testifying at trial. On the basis of the information obtained through the deposition, Seig was vigorously and competently cross-examined. This opportunity to depose this surprise rebuttal witness before his testimony at trial served to remove the prejudice caused by the initial surprise. (Citations omitted). 93 N.M. at 104, 597 P.2d 280 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ewing
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.