Germain v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2021
8 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3552
Relies on Williams v. People of State of New York · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Soberon v. United States · United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. · Stevens v. Marks
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f the record showed that the refreshing material was deliberately used for purposes not material to the issues but to arouse the passions of the jurors, so that an objective appraisal of the evidence was unlikely, there would be reversible error. Likewise there would be error where under the pretext of refreshing a witness’ recollection, the prior testimony was introduced as evidence. Rosenthal v. United States, 248 F. 684, 686 . But here the grand jury testimony was used simply to refresh the recollection on material facts, New York & Colorado Mining Syndicate & Co. v. Fraser, 130 U.S. 611 , 9 S.Ct. 665 , 32 L.Ed. 1031 , not as independent affirmative evidence. Bates v. Preble, 151 U.S. 149 , 14 S.Ct. 277 , 38 L.Ed. 106 . Furthermore, it was not used for impeachment purposes....”
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.