Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 146 Ariz. 108 - State v. Via

State v. Via’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

99
cited by 99 later decisions
7
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

99 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably State v. Atwood (1992), State v. Korzep (1990)

99 state decisions

45019851990200020102020decided

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 Franks v. Delaware · Neil v. Biggers · Hamling v. United States · Mincey v. Arizona · Dunaway v. New York

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

  1. “[T]he factors to be considered [in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification] include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation. Against these factors is to be weighed the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) Are of the same or similar character; or (2) Are based on the same conduct or are otherwise connected together in their commission; or (3) Are alleged to have been a part of a common scheme or plan.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation" plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.””
    2 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.