Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 950 SW2D 900 - State v. Ponder

State v. Ponder’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently February 2018

20 state decisions

130199720002010decided

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 · Scharffe v. Perkins · Joseph v. United States · Lovett v. United States · Marquez v. Texas

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

  1. “must show-fe accused committed, was accused of, was convicted of, or was definitely associated .with, the other crimes or misconduct. State v. Stoner, 907 S.W.2d 360 , 364 [11] (Mo.App. W.D.1995). Vague remarks cannot be characterized as clear evidence to associate the accused with other crimes. State v. Hornbuckle, 769 S.W.2d 89, 96 (Mo. banc 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S., 860 , 110 S.Ct. 171 , 107 L.Ed.2d 128 (1989); Stoner, 907 S.W.2d at 364 [11].”
    2 later decisions 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.