State v. Messier’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably State v. Delisle (1994), State v. Recor (1988)
50 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 Barker v. Wingo · Ohio v. Roberts · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Chaffin v. Stynchcombe · United States v. Fairchild
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A person arrested for or charged with an offense may request a judge to order a nontestimonial identification procedure. If it appears that the results of specific nontestimonial identification procedures will be of material aid in determining whether the defendant committed the offense, the judge shall order the state to conduct such identification procedure involving the defendant under such terms and conditions as the judge shall prescribe.” (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Braxton““by its language [the rule] applies only to procedures involving a defendant himself, not to non-party witnesses. The purpose of this rule is to allow the suspect an opportunity to initiate the procedures on his own, should it be in his best interests and the State has failed to do so, or if he desires some tests in addition to those provided by the State.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Braxton““That is not to say that there could never be any compelling circumstances under which the granting of such a request might be constitutionally required. We simply hold that no such circumstances were present here.” (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Braxton
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.