Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 142 NH 357 - State v. Graham

State v. Graham’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably State v. Ellsworth (1998), State v. White (2000)

32 state decisions

1701997200020102020decided

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 Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · State v. Gagne · Bronson v. Hitchcock Clinic · State v. Smith · State v. Fennell

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

  1. “The threshold showing necessary to trigger an in camera review is not unduly high. The defendant must meaningfully articulate how the information sought is relevant and material to his defense. To do so, he must present a plausible theory of relevance and materiality sufficient to justify review of the protected documents, but he is not required to prove that his theory is true. At a minimum, a defendant must present some specific concern, based on more than bare conjecture, that, in reasonable probability, will be explained by the information sought.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “should conduct an in camera review of the [victim’s counseling] records, and then determine whether the records contain evidence that would have been essential and reasonably necessary to the defense at trial. If the records do contain such evidence, the court should order a new trial unless it finds that the error of not admitting the evidence in the first trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    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.