Dillard v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
203 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 203 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Swope v. State (1975), Poindexter v. State (1978)
203 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · Bruton v. United States · United States v. Wade
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 203 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * the length of time the witness was in the presence of the perpetrator, the distance of the witness from him, the lighting conditions at the time, capacity for observation by the witness, [and] opportunity to observe particular characteristics of the criminal * * *.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘ [T] his Court has held that an on-the-scene confrontation between a witness and a suspect conducted within a reasonably short time after the commission of the crime for the purpose of determining whether the witness can identify the suspect is not within the scope of the Wade-Gilbert rule. Parker v. State, (1970) [254] Ind. [593], 261 N.E.2d 562 ; McPhearson v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 254 , 253 N.E.2d 226 ; Lewis v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 454 , 250 N.E.2d 358 .’ Dillard v. State, (1971) [257] Ind. [282], 274 N.E.2d 387, 389 .” 279 N.E.2d at 190 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although described as the particularity requirement, in reality this test also smuggled in the commonsensical elements of a showing that the information is not readily available elsewhere (the "degree of discovery of other items of information” in Dillard) and that the party seeking it is not engaged in a fishing expedition with no focused idea of the size, species, or edibility of the fish.”
3 later decisions 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.