Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 120 Idaho 46 - State v. Walters

State v. Walters’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
3
states following
November 2017
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently November 2017

24 state decisions

90199120002010decided

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 · State v. Lindsey · State v. Pinero · State v. Rimmasch · State v. Tucker

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

  1. “Trial counsel's inexplicable failure to object to [the fire expert's] extremely damaging opinion that the defendant was guilty of setting the fire was an error so serious that we rule that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed by the sixth amendment. Trial counsel's failure to object to [the fire expert's] damaging opinion is on par with the failure by counsel . . . to suppress the damaging testimony of [a police officer].”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “When an arson expert declares that it was the defendant who set the fire in the house, there can be little doubt that the jury was impressed and influenced by the authoritative statement. Had [the fire expert] been prevented from declaring his damaging opinion, there is at the least a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “it is impossible to say that the accusation by the arson expert did not have a substantial influence on the verdict.”
    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.