Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 987 SW2D 457 - State v. Riggins

State v. Riggins’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
July 2014
most recently cited

7 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Sladek · State v. Hornbuckle · State v. Shaw · State v. Morrow · State v. Simmons

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

  1. “We find no error in the trial court’s ruling. The statement that the victim “shorted” defendant is vague, as it does not expressly refer to any criminal activity [on the defendant’s part in a drug transaction]. The witness did not say defendant had been shorted on a drug deal, but only that defendant had been shorted on a deal. It could have been an entirely legal deal. Equally important, this testimony was admissible because it is relevant to the motive for the crime charged, as it establishes a reason why defendant would want to harm the victim.”
    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.