State v. Isaac’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably 327 So. 2d 301 - State v. Nix (1975), State v. Richmond (1973)
64 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 Detenber v. American Universal Insurance Co · Lehigh Valley Railroad Company v. Royal Indemnity Company and Others · Oklahoma v. Texas · State v. Reese · State v. Coleman
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Before the admission of an object in evidence, a foundation must be laid showing that it is related to the case. The foundation testimony may consist of visual identification of the object by witnesses or by establishing a continuous chain of custody from the seizure of the object to its introduction in evidence at the trial. For admission, it suffices if the testimony establishes that it is more probable than not that the object is connected with the case. A preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. State v. Coleman, 254 La. 264 , 223 So.2d 402 (1969); State v. Martin, 250 La. 705 , 198 So.2d 897 (1967); State v. Bertrand, 247 La. 232 , 170 So.2d 386 (1965)."”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. McGhee · State v. Davis“The lack of positive identification goes to the weight of the evidence, rather than to its admissibility. Ultimately, connexity of physical evidence is a factual matter for determination by the jury. [citations omitted]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“enmity between the juror and the defendant. . . such that it is reasonable to conclude that it would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict.”
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.