Swanson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2020
16 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 Harris v. State · Scherrer v. State · Duncan v. State · Prater v. State · Butler v. State
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have often written that the decision to grant or deny a continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion, see, e.g., Butler v. State, 303 Ark. 380 , 797 S.W.2d 435 (1990), but we have also written: DNA tests should not be ruled admissible before the accused’s expert has had a chance to examine the evidence, procedures, and protocol. . . . [A]ccess to data, methodology, and actual results are crucial. An accused must be given the opportunity for independent expert review before a determination of reliability is made. Prater v. State, 307 Ark. 180, 200 , 820 S.W.2d 429 (1991). Thus the denial of a continuance which would deprive an accused of the chance to have an independent review of DNA analysis will be closely examined.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hunter v. State
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.