State v. Bullcoming’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
55
cited by 55 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
May 2020
most recently cited
4 federal appellate · 47 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Crawford v. Washington · Gregg v. Georgia · Davis v. Washington · Marks v. United States · Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“was a mere scrivener, and [d]efendant's true `accuser' was the gas chromatograph machine which detected the presence of alcohol in [d]efendant's blood, assessed [d]efendant's BAC, and generated a computer print-out listing its results.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A forensic analyst responding to a request from a law enforcement official may feel pressure——or have an incentive——to alter the evidence in a manner favorable to the prosecution.”
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.