Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 115 N.M. 536 - State v. Baca

State v. Baca’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
3
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

1 district · 56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably State Ex Rel. Helman v. Gallegos (1994), State v. Ogden (1994)

1 district · 56 state decisions

260199320002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Energy Cooperative, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · Jones v. Farm Credit Administration

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

  1. “As in Pohl , we cannot determine whether the suppressed evidence was material to [the d]efendants' claim of self[ ]defense, but, unlike Pohl , [the d]efendants neither requested an in camera hearing nor showed as specific a need as could be expected under the circumstances.... Rather, our review of the argument made during the motion hearing convinces us that [the d]efendants were on a fishing expedition. [The d]efendants made no showing that their rights would be violated but for full disclosure of the master file[.]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “we must avoid concentrating on the suppressed evidence in isolation. Rather, we must place it in the context of the entire record. Evidence that may first appear to be quite compelling when considered alone can lose its potency when weighed and measured with all the other evidence, both inculpatory and exculpatory. Implicit in the standard of materiality is the notion that the significance of any particular bit of evidence can only be determined by comparison to the rest.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Id. {16} On appeal, the defendants asked the Court of Appeals to consider whether the trial court erred in denying their motion for release of the victim's complete master file, despite the access they received to many of the documents contained therein. The Court of Appeals framed the issue as”
    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.