State v. Pearson’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently February 2005 · most notably State v. Haddock (1995), 196 Cal. App. 3d 1127 - People v. Reilly (1987)
49 state decisions
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 · Moore v. Illinois · Davis v. Alaska · Trudo v. United States · United States v. Carlton E. Bryant, United States of America v. William E. Turner
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the absence of fraud or bad faith on the part of the State and its investigative agents, due process does not require the State to invite the accused to participate in or supervise testing procedures performed in the investigation of a crime, even where the amount of evidence to be tested is so small sufficient material will not remain to allow the defendant to conduct an independent analysis of the evidence. The defendant’s due process rights are sufficiently protected by the opportunity to challenge the credibility of the State’s expert and validity of the testing procedures used through cross-examination or expert testimony.” 234 Kan. at 916 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Nguyen““One of the exceptions to the requirement of a search warrant is a search made with consent or waiver voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly given. [Citations omitted.] The existence and voluntariness of a consent to search and seizure is a question of fact to be decided in light of the attendant circumstances by the trier of fact. It will not be overturned on appeal unless clearly erroneous. The quantum of evidence necessary to prove voluntariness has been held to be by a preponderance. [Citations omitted.]” State v. Pearson, 234 Kan. 906, 920 , 678 P.2d 605 (1984).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““This court held in State v. Washington, 229 Kan. 47, 59 , 622 P.2d 986 (1981), that evidence of population percentages concerning the possibility of certain combinations of blood characteristics, based upon established facts, is admissible as relevant to identification, and that this information is reasonably within the expertise of the forensic expert testifying to blood-type analysis.” 234 Kan. at 922 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Stukey
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.