State v. Vandebogart’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably 125 Wash. 2d 24 - State v. Russell (1994), United States v. Bonds (1993)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 85 state decisions — followed in 23 states
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 Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Frye v. United States · 17 Cal. 3d 24 - People v. Kelly · Reed v. State · United States v. Jakobetz
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In effect, Frye envisions an evolutionary process leading to the admissibility of scientific evidence. A novel technique must pass through an `experimental' stage in which it is scrutinized by the scientific community. Only after the technique has been tested successfully in ... this stage will it receive judicial recognition.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carter · State v. Copeland“The ceiling principle yields the same frequency for a genotype, regardless of the suspect’s ethnic background, because the reported [ceiling] frequency represents a maximum for any possible ethnic heritage. Accordingly, the ethnic background of an individual suspect should be ignored in estimating the likelihood of a random match. The calculation is fair to suspects, because the estimated probabilities are likely to be conservative in their incriminating power.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Johnson“(1) permits disputes concerning scientific validity to be resolved by the relevant scientific community ...; (2) ensures that “a minimal reserve of experts exist who can critically examine the validity of a scientific determination in a particular case,” ...; (3) spares courts from the time-consuming and difficult task of repeatedly assessing the validity of innovative scientific techniques, ...; and (4) “promote[s] a degree of uniformity of decisions.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fishback v. People
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.