State v. Stringham’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 2019
15 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 State v. James · State v. Larsen · State v. Workman · Ong International (U.S.A.) Inc. v. 11th Avenue Corp. · Owen v. Corporation
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial court has wide discretion in determining the admissibility of ... testimony, and such decisions are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Under this standard, we will not reverse unless the decision exceeds the limits of reasonability.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is too long a reach to suggest the jury divined that defendant had to act inten tionally because such a level of volition is inherent in the concept of 'devisfingl a scheme.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Any person who has devised any scheme or artifice to defraud another or to obtain from another money, property, or anything of value by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, or material omissions, and who communicates directly or indirectly with any person by any means for the purpose of executing or concealing the scheme or artifice is guilty of: ... (d) a second degree felony when the value of the property, money, or thing obtained or sought to be obtained is or exceeds $5,000 ....”
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.