Case v. Hatch’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Case v. Hatch (2013), Gould v. Commissioner of Correction (2011)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions
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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An alleged Brady violation is a charge of prosecutorial misconduct. See State v. Trujillo, [ 131 N.M. 709 ] 42 P.3d 814 [ (N.M.2002) ]. The trial court’s ruling on prosecutorial misconduct is reviewed for abuse of discretion because “the ‘trial court is in the best position to evaluate the significance of any alleged prosecutorial errors.’ ” Id. [at 831] (quoting State v. Duffy, [ 126 N.M. 132 ] 967 P.2d 807 [ (N.M.1998) ]). The trial court should be upheld “‘unless its ruling [was] arbitrary, capricious, or beyond reason.’ ” Id. (quoting Duffy, [ 126 N.M. 132 ] 967 P.2d 807 [ (N.M.1998) ]).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[T]he suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. In order to establish a Brady violation, the petitioner must show that: (1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to the accused; and (3) the evidence was material to the defense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In this case, other than the alleged motive — that days or weeks before the murder, Autry became angry because he was unable to conclude a sexual act with Mitchell — Case has not pointed to the existence of other evidence, direct or circumstantial, which links Autry to Mitchell’s murder. Although Dunlap confirmed Autry’s presence during the night in question, he testified that he was not sure where Autry went when the attack on Mitchell began, and he did not see Autry again after the attack began. The motive itself is speculative. For Brady purposes, exculpatory evidence cannot be purely speculative. We therefore agree with the trial court that the State did not suppress material evidence from Case, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.