Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 299 Md. 581 - Webster v. State

Webster v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

84
cited by 84 later decisions
3
states following
December 2019
most recently cited

82 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably Lodowski v. State (1986), Evans v. State (1985)

82 state decisions

2901984199020002010decided

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 Anders v. California · Wong Sun v. United States · Gideon v. Wainwright · United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States

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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(i) the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (ii) the witness’ degree of attention; (iii) the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal; (iv) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation; [and] (v) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"(1) Suggestive, but permissibly so. See Stovall [v. Denno], 388 U.S. 293 [, 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967)]. (2) Impermissibly (unnecessarily) suggestive. See [Neil v.] Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 [, 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972)]. (3) So impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of misidentification. Id. at 198 [, 93 S.Ct. at 381, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 ], (4) So impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of imparable misidentification. See Stovall, 388 U.S. at 301-302 , 87 S.Ct. at 1972 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 . Simmons [v. United States], 390 U.S. [377,] 384, 88 S.Ct. [967,] 971, [ 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968)]. Biggers, 409 U.S. at 198 , 93 S.Ct. at 381 [ 34 L.Ed.2d 401 ].””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.”
    3 later decisions 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.