Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2006 WY 18 - Chauncey v. State

Chauncey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
September 2025
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 2025

10 state decisions

50200620102020decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Giglio v. United States · Kyles v. Whitley · Barefoot v. Estelle

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

  1. “one additional piece of cumulative information”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “ensure that a miscarriage of justice does not occur.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “This case presents a much different situation than Davis . Whereas in Davis , Morris could not effectively be impeached without the suppressed information, in the instant case, CS's credibility was extensively challenged. * * * Specifically, the jury had been told that CS was a "worldly young lady" who received special deals from methamphetamine dealers because she was able to set the dealers up with other buyers. On direct and cross-examination, CS's past use of methamphetamine, marijuana, and cocaine was explored, as were her previous drug-related arrests and convictions and her difficulty abstaining from narcotics. CS was also questioned about her mental state on the night in question, to which she replied that she had used methamphetamine earlier on October 27 and that night she was "[n]ot really high, but more just coming down." The appellant was also given extensive discovery materials that included statements by CS and another individual tending to show she was heavily involved in using and selling narcotics. Finally, the appellant had CS's testimony from [his girlfriend]'s trial which detailed CS's drug use and which was also used at the appellant's trial to impeach CS.”
    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.