Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 323 Ark. 529 - Moore v. State

Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
5
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

84 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably MacKintrush v. State (1998), Hinkston v. State (2000)

84 state decisions

3801996200020102020decided

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 Illinois v. Gates · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Schmerber v. State of California · Frye v. United States · United States v. Jakobetz

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

  1. “any challenge to the conclusions reached by the state’s expert, including statistical probability of whether the test results constituted a match, would appropriately be made at trial, by cross-examination of the state’s experts and presentation by the defendant of his own experts to express differing opinions about the results of the [DNA] tests and statistical probability of a match.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a “substantial basis for . . . concluding] ” that probable cause existed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Rule 701. Opinion testimony by lay witnesses. If the witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (1) Rationally based on the perception of the witness; and (2) Helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.”
    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.