State v. Kirkland’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
May 1976
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Wade · Gilbert v. California · State v. Richey · State v. Amphy · State v. Biagas
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... [A] criminal suspect may be apprehended so close in proximity to time and place of the crime itself that the exigencies of the situation make it neither practical nor necessary to afford counsel for an in-the-field identification. State v. Richey, 258 La. 1094 , 249 So.2d 143 (1971); State v. Amphy, 259 La. 161 , 249 So.2d 560 (1971). Neither U. S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 , nor Gilbert v. State of California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967) requires a contrary holding. There is no showing here that the procedure was conducted so unfairly or in such an impermissively suggestive manner as to amount to denial of due process of law."”
1 later decision 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.