Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 100 N.M. 735 - State v. Anthony

State v. Anthony’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
July 2000
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 2000

18 state decisions

120198319902000decided

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 Washington Post Co. v. Rebozo · Alexander v. Delgado Ex Rel. Delgado · 88 Ill. 2d 225 - People v. Baynes · State v. Valdez · State v. Antone

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

  1. “"Experts are virtually unanimous that unless the `relevant' questions are carefully formulated, the test results are suspect. A relevant question means a `clear and concise question which refers to specific objective facts directly related to the purpose of the examination and does not allow rationalization in the answer.'" (Citations omitted.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “B. Minimum qualifications of polygraph examiner. To be qualified as an expert witness on the truthfulness of a witness, a polygraph examiner must have at least the following minimum qualifications: (1) at least five (5) years’ experience in administration or interpretation of polygraph examinations or equivalent academic training; (2) conducted or reviewed the examination in accordance with the provisions of this rule; and (3) successfully completed at least twenty (20) hours of continuing education in the field of polygraph examinations during the twelve (12) month period immediately pri- or to the date of the examination. C. Admissibility of results. Subject to the provisions of these rules, the opinion of a polygraph examiner may in the discretion of the trial judge be admitted as evidence as to the truthfulness of any person called as a witness if the examination was performed by a person who is qualified as an expert polygraph examiner pursuant to the provisions of this rule and if: (1) the polygraph examination was conducted in accordance with the provisions of this rule; (2) the polygraph examination was quantitatively scored in a manner that is generally accepted as reliable by polygraph experts; (3) prior to conducting the polygraph examination the polygraph examiner was informed as to the examinee’s background, health, education and other relevant information; (4) at least two (2) relevant questions were asked during the examination; and (5) at least three (3) chart”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““[A]mong the factors that can adversely affect the reliability of the polygraph test are the emotional upset of the subject, fatigue, drunkenness, drugs, bad physical or emotional condition, high blood pressure, low blood pressure, hardening of the arteries, obesity, feeble-mindedness, amnesia, a psychotic condition, being a pathologic liar, lack of fear or concern, at being caught in a lie, surreptitious nervous simulation, use of antiperspirants, hypnosis, extraneous noise or abnormal temperatures.””
    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.