Brandon v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2004 · most notably Collins v. State (1981), Griffin v. State (1981)
1 federal appellate · 39 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 Pulliam v. State · Mack v. State · United States v. De Georgia · Brannum v. State · 158 Ind. App. 29 - American United Life Insurance Company v. Peffley
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[IJt must be shown that the electronic computing equipment is standard, that the entries are made in the regular course of business at or reasonably near the time of the happening of the event recorded, and that the testimony satisfies the court that the sources of information and method and time of preparation were such as to indicate its authenticity and accuracy and justify its acceptance as trustworthy."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Allen v. State · Hatton v. State““It has already been clearly established in this state that a duplicate of a document is admissible in evidence ‘to the same extent as an original unless a genuine issue is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or under the circumstances existing it would be unfair to admit the duplicate as an original.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kelly v. State · Bray v. State“if identified by its entrant or one under whose supervision it is kept and shown to be an original or first permanent entry, made in the routine course of business, at or near the time of the recorded transaction, by one having both a duty to so record and personal knowledge of the transaction represented by the entry.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kinkade v. State
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.