Dike v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Lancaster v. State (2002), Byron Nelson Griggs v. State (2016)
25 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 Flora v. United States · Hullum v. United States · Russell v. United States · Tome v. United States · United States v. Iron Shell
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We attempt to interpret statutes in accordance with the legislature's intent. We begin by making an " 'inquiry respecting the ordinary and obvious meaning of the words employed according to their arrangement and connection" " Parker Land and Cattle Company v. Wyoming Game and Fish Commussion, 845 P.2d 1040, 1042 (Wyo.1993) (quoting Rasmussen v. Baker, 7 Wyo. 117, 133 , 50 P. 819, 823 (1897)). We construe statutes as a whole, giving effect to every word, clause, and sentence, and we construe together all parts of the statutes on the same subject. We give effect to the plain language of unambiguous statutes. We resort to extrinsic aids of statutory interpretation, such as legislative history or intent, only when statutes are ambiguous.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[when the jury is presented with contradictory testimony, counsel is allowed to communicate the reasonable inference that one of the witnesses is lying.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Beaugureau v. State · Duke v. State“(b) Hearsay Exceptions. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: [[Image here]] (8) Statement Against Interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject him to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by him against another, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating cireumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Urbigkit 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.