Seeley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably Gleason v. State (2002), Dysthe v. State (2003)
29 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 Chapman v. State of California · Illinois v. Allen · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Kentucky v. Stincer · Rogers 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Sixth Amendment and the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee an accused the right to be present during every stage of the criminal proceeding that is critical to its outcome if his presence would contribute to the fairness of the procedure.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Campbell v. State · Wall v. State“defendant's presence is not required when it 'would be useless, or the benefit but a shadow.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Wall v. State · Belden v. State“"It is not necessary to offer direct evidence of the [appellant's] actual possession of the contraband. '[Clireumstantial evidence linking together a series of facts' allowing a reasonable inference that the [appellant] had the requisite control and knowledge of the [contraband] is sufficient to show constructive possession. Wise, 654 P.2d at 119 . The court must consider the totality of the circumstances when determining whether sufficient evidence was presented to allow the jury to infer that the [appellant] had the requisite control and knowledge of the contraband. Urrutia v. State, 924 P.2d 965, 967 (Wyo.1996)."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Houghton v. State · Pine v. State
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.