State v. Limerick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 state decisions

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

1. ““In passing on the admissibility of exhibits where a break in the chain of custody is shown, we have ordinarily held the failure to account for undisturbed possession goes to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. State v. Shilinsky, 248 Iowa 596, 599 , 81 N.W.2d 444 ; State v. Ford, 259 Iowa 744, 748, 749 , 145 N.W.2d 638 . We have consistently applied this rule and held the evidence properly admitted as within the discretion of the trial court where the exhibits consisted of solid objects, not easily susceptible to undetected alteration, such as money, State v. Shilinsky, supra; hammer and gun, State v. Ford, supra; a gun, State v. Johnson, Iowa, 162 N.W.2d 453 ; clothing and a body, State v. Parker, 261 Iowa 88 , 151 N.W.2d 505, 508 ; matches and glasses, State v. Post, 255 Iowa 573 , 123 N.W.2d 11 . Where the possibility of alteration of an exhibit is slight, the materiality of the alteration remote, and the exhibit has otherwise been properly identified we have dispensed with a showing of continuous custody.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Kroeplin · State v. Ubben