State v. Langlet’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corp. (1996), Trevino v. Ortega (1998)
43 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Burgess v. United States · United States v. Remington · United States v. Miranda · Vick v. Texas Employment Commission
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A spoliation instruction] is not appropriate however unless the evidence suggests that the destruction of the evidence was intentional because only then could it amount to “an admission by conduct of the weakness of one’s case.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The prosecution is required to show sufficient custody of physical evidence to establish that the article presented at trial is the same one taken from the defendant and that it has not been altered by in-termeddlers. Thus, a ‘[t]rial judge determines the sufficiency of physical evidence identification in light of the article’s nature, circumstances surrounding its custody and the likelihood of intermeddlers tampering with it.’ State v. Bakker, 262 N.W.2d 538, 543 (Iowa 1978). The more susceptible an article is to alteration or substitution, the higher the showing of chain of custody required. Id. The level of custody required is that which ‘make[s] it reasonably probable that tampering, substitution or alteration ... did not occur.’ Id. ‘Contrary speculation affects the weight of the evidence but not its admissibility.’ State v. Lunsford, 204 N.W.2d 613, 617 (Iowa 1973).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Barger“If you find from the evidence that there existed a tape recording of material statements made or words spoken at or about the scene of the alleged transaction existed [sic] and that the state intentionally destroyed the tape recording, you may, but are not required to, infer that the information contained on the tape recording would be, if available, adverse to the state and favorable to the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Maniccia
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.