Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 118 N.M. 284 - State v. Anderson

State v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

110
cited by 110 later decisions
13
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

108 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Commonwealth v. Lanigan (1994), State v. Torres (1999)

108 state decisions — followed in 13 states

400199420002010decided

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 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Frye v. United States · Yagow v. United States · Davis v. United States · United States v. Downing

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

  1. “(1) whether a theory or technique 'can be (and has been) tested'; (2) 'whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication'; (3) 'the known [or] potential rate of error' in using a particular scientific technique 'and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation'; and (4) whether the theory or technique has been generally accepted in the particular scientific field.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “whether the scientific technique ... is capable of supporting opinions based upon reasonable probability rather than conjecture.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[a]n appellate court should be wary of substituting its judgments for that of the trial court. An abuse of discretion standard of review, however, is not tantamount to rubber-stamping the trial judge’s decision. It should not prevent an appellate court from conducting a meaningful analysis of the admission [of] scientific testimony to ensure that the trial judge’s decision was in accordance with the Rules of Evidence and the evidence in the case.”
    3 later decisions 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.