365 So. 2d 399 - State v. Herrera’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably State v. King (1982), 445 So. 2d 605 - State v. Del Gaudio (1984)
26 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Moore v. Illinois · 54 Ill. App. 3d 454 - People v. Taylor · 249 So. 2d 470 - Sher v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. · 317 So. 2d 142 - Farrell 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We agree that it would be better practice, although not constitutionally mandated, for the State to delay the testing of miniscule quantities of suspect drugs in a drug prosecution until the defendant or his representative has been given a fair opportunity to be present during such testing. . .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The law is clear that the state’s intentional or negligent suppression of material evidence favorable to the defendant after a defense request for such evidence constitutes a denial of due process under our state and federal constitutions.... [HJowever, the weight of authority in the country is that the destruction of suspect contraband drugs unavoidably consumed during chemical testing by a state chemist does not constitute an act of suppres sion of evidence by the state sufficient to trigger a due process violation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The law is clear that the state's intentional or negligent suppression of material evidence favorable to the defendant after a defense request for such evidence constitutes a denial of due process under our state and federal constitutions... . [T]he weight of authority in the country is that the destruction of suspect contraband drugs unavoidably consumed during chemical testing by a state chemist does not constitute an act of suppression of evidence by the state sufficient to trigger a due process violation.”
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.