Upshur v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
2 district · 16 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2702 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Katz v. United States · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Rakas v. Illinois · United States v. Jacobsen
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The first is whether the identification procedure was imper-missibly suggestive. If the answer is “no,” the inquiry ends and both the extra-judicial identification and the in-court identification are admissible at trial. If, on the other hand, the procedure was impermissibly suggestive, the second step is triggered, and the court must determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the identification was reliable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.