240 N.J. Super. 44 - State v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently July 2016
19 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 · State v. Carter · Romano v. Kimmelman · State v. Downie · State v. R.W.
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.
“[D]efendants' discovery in DWI cases is limited to those relevant items, within the limitations of Rule 3:13-3(a), which there is a reasonabl[e] basis to believe will assist a defendant's defense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a defendant in a drunk driving case is entitled to discovery of all the relevant materials listed in the 11 categories enumerated in R. 3:13-3(a).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[u]nlike discovery in civil cases, information cannot be demanded which merely leads to other information which is `relevant.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.