State v. Grant’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
2 district · 75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably In Re Jorden R. (2009), State v. Outing (2010)
2 district · 75 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Franks v. Delaware · Schmerber v. State of California · Griffin v. California · Rhode Island v. Innis
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“determination of whether any improper conduct by the state's attorney violated the defendant's fair trial rights is predicated on the factors set forth in State v. Williams , [supra, 204 Conn. at 540 , 529 A.2d 653 ], with due consideration of whether that [impropriety] was objected to at trial.... These factors include the extent to which the [impropriety] was invited by defense conduct or argument, the severity of the [impropriety], the frequency of the [impropriety], the centrality of the [impropriety] to the critical issues in the case, the strength of the curative measures adopted, and the strength of the state's case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[i]t is permissible to admit into evidence the opinions of common observers in regard to common appearances, facts and conditions ... in a great variety of cases.... When the question involved can be answered by the application of ordinary knowledge and experience, expert testimony is not required ... although [t]o render opinions of common witnesses admissible it is indispensable that the opinions be founded on their own personal observation, and not [on] the testimony of others, or on any hypothetical * statement of facts, as is permitted in the case of experts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Holley“[a] person of ordinary knowledge and experience generally is competent to testify that a substance personally observed by that person appeared to be blood. Although the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the witness' observation of the substance might affect the weight to be given to the testimony, the fact that the substance was not subject to scientific testing to rule out any possibility that it was not blood does not render the testimony inadmissible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Holley
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.