State v. Logue’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably State v. Rimmasch (1989), State v. Castro (1988)
57 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 United States v. Amaral · United States v. Green · State v. Myers · People in Interest of OEP · State v. Phipps
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An indictment is sufficient if it `contains the elements of the offense charged such that it apprises the defendant with reasonable certainty of the accusations against him, and it must enable him to plead an acquittal of conviction as a bar to future prosecutions for the same offense.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Smith · State v. Peck“[E]xpert testimony particularly courts the danger of undue prejudice or of confusing the issues or misleading the jury because of its aura of special reliability and trustworthiness.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Wjithin the context of a criminal trial, “[sjcientific or expert testimony particularly courts the [danger of undue prejudice or of confusing the issues or misleading the jury] because of its aura of special reliability and trustworthiness.” [United■ States v. Amaral, 488 F.2d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.1973)] (citation omitted). Permitting the social worker to testify as an “expert” that it was her opinion that the alleged victim gained his sexual knowledge from having sex with appellant, lent a stamp of undue legitimacy to her testimony. Admittedly, the trial court has broad discretion in qualifying an expert but, here, we are not dealing with scientific data which will aid the jury in an area wholly beyond their understanding. Clearly, the social sciences do not claim empiricism or the scientific exactitude that physics and medicine aspire to. We believe that the possibility of prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value of this testimony, and that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in admitting it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bachman · Lickey 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.