State v. Grier’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 133 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 146 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd. (2004), Connecticut v. Porter (1997)
8 federal appellate · 133 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 State v. Valdez · State v. Antone · 162 W. Va. 602 - State v. Frazier · 62 Wis. 2d 730 - State v. Stanislawski · United States v. Alexander
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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the administration of justice simply cannot, and should not, tolerate the incredible burdens involved in the process of ensuring that a polygraph examination has been properly administered”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The validity of the polygraphic process is dependent upon such a large number of variable factors, many of which are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to assess, that we feel the stipulation simply cannot adequately deal with all situations which might arise affecting the accuracy of any particular test."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lyon · State v. Davis“Dr. Rita Kay Williams examined the victim shortly after the rape on 22 September 1981. She testified that although she did not actually see the blood drawn from Mrs. Lee, she signed a blood sample that was supposedly taken from the victim by a laboratory technician either immediately before or after the examination. The technician who drew the blood did not testify. Defendant, relying on Robinson v. Life and Casualty Ins. Co., 255 N.C. 669 , 122 S.E.2d 801 (1961), argues that the chain of custody was insufficient to permit submission of evidence concerning the blood test. His position is that the person who actually draws the blood specimen must testify in order to lay a proper foundation for the admission of this evidence. We do not interpret Robinson to hold that the person who draws the blood must testify in every case in order to establish a proper foundation for the admission of this evidence. . . . . . Here, as in [ State v. ] Detter [ 298 N.C. 604 , 260 S.E.2d 567, 588 (1979) ] the possibility that Mrs. Lee's blood sample was confused with someone else's is simply too remote to require exclusion of this evidence. Any weakness in the chain of custody relates only to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility. Id. This assignment of error is overruled. (Emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.