State v. Classen’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Brodes v. State (2005), Gunning v. State (1997)
4 federal appellate · 43 state decisions — followed in 10 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 United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno · Manson v. Brathwaite
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" Decision. For a court sitting in panels of three judges, the average time for rendering decision should not exceed 30 days; the maximum time for any case, except one of extraordinary complexity, should not exceed 60 days. For a court sitting in larger panels, the average time should not exceed 60 days; the maximum time, except in cases of extraordinary complexity, should not exceed 90 days. " (Emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Quinn · Matter of Carroll“"These include the opportunity that the witness had at the time to get a clear view of the persons involved in the crime and the attention he or she gave to their identifying features, the timing and completeness of the description given by the witness after the event, the certainty expressed by the witness in that description and in making the subsequent identification, and, of course, the lapse of time between the original observation and the subsequent identification. These are not to be taken as a mechanical checklist of `constitutional' facts. Obviously other facts may also be important, such as the age and sensory acuity of the witness, see State v. Bush, 29 Or.App. 315 , 563 P.2d 747 (1977), or a special occupational concern with people's appearance or physical features, or the frequency of his or her contacts with individuals sharing the general characteristics of the person identified, see Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. [98, 115, 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977)]. Listing these and other relevant inquiries must not distract attention from the ultimate issue whether an identification made in a suggestive procedure has nevertheless been demonstrated to be reliable despite that suggestiveness."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“"* * * when this court becomes exclusively a court of review in 1979 the problem will be not only whether the court can then decide without unreasonable delay the cases arising from petitions for review allowed by it, but also whether the court can do so without unduly restricting its "intake" by the denial of petitions for review in cases which could and should be decided by it if this court is able (and willing) to work to the full extent of its capacity."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Beason
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.