Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 NH 392 - State v. Larochelle

State v. Larochelle’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
9
states following
April 2003
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently April 2003 · most notably United States v. Oates (1977), State v. King (1982)

3 federal appellate · 40 state decisions

1801972198019902000decided

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 Barker v. Wingo · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Douglas v. Alabama · Barber v. Page · Henry v. State of Mississippi

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

  1. ““‘shall file notice in . . . court, within five days immediately following the receipt by said person of the results of any blood alcohol test administered to him, requiring the attendance of the person who took the sample for said test or of the person who conducted the test, or both. Failure to file notice shall be deemed a waiver to require their attendance at the trial, and the official report of said test.. . shall be deemed conclusive evidence of the conduct and results of said test.’””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[were] not “made by persons and for purposes unconnected with a criminal case [but rather they are a direct] result of ... test[s] made for the specific purpose of convicting a defendant[.]” ... It would therefore seem that if the chemist’s report and worksheet here can be “matters observed,” the documents would fail to satisfy the requirements of exception FRE 803(8) for the chemist must be included within the category of “other law enforcement personnel.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. ““The right to confrontation is one of the basic safeguards of liberty. If it had not been intended that it should provide greater protection than that given by the hearsay rule as a mere rule of evidence subject to change or even elimination, there would have been no need to enshrine it in the Bills of Rights of both Constitutions.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.