Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 UT 45 - State v. Hubbard

State v. Hubbard’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
3
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2020

22 state decisions

110200220102020decided

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 Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · United States v. Gagnon

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

  1. “`recognize[s] that whether to allow proffered expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification testimony is a matter best left to the trial court's discretion.'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[I]t is left to the trial court's sound discretion to decide whether the proffered expert testimony would constitute a lecture, the substance of which can be just as adequately conveyed to the jury through the judge in a jury instruction, as opposed to through expert testimony.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “11 The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Dodd's testimony. The court gave reasoning to support its decision, understood the rule set forth in Hubbard, and provided the jury with the cautionary instruction supplied by Brink, which was tailored to the facts of the case. Further, Brink has not made a substantial showing that Dr. Dodd's testimony "would probably have had a substantial influence in bringing about a different verdict.”
    1 later decision 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.