State v. Vaughn’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably State v. Duncan (1982), 450 So. 2d 938 - State v. Vessell (1984)
1 federal appellate · 59 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 Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite · Kirby v. Illinois · State v. Chopin · 356 So. 2d 1370 - State v. Martin
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Louisiana jurisprudence has held that business records are admissible as proof of their assertions if the persons concerned with recording the information, from personal knowledge or from information furnished by one having a business duty to record it, are unavailable for testimony, if the first collected record available to the court is introduced, if the records are identified by one familiar with the bookkeeping procedure, and if the evidence seems reliable. State v. Perniciaro, [ 374 So.2d 1244 (La.1979)] supra; State v. Monroe, [ 345 So.2d 1185 (La.1977)] supra; see Comment, Business Records in Louisiana as an Exception to the Hearsay Rule, 21 La.L.Rev. 449 (1961), reprinted in Pugh, Louisiana Evidence Law, 1974, 476-488."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jones“A defendant attempting to suppress an identification must prove (1) that the identification was "suggestive" and (2) that there was a likelihood of misidentification in the identification procedure. [citations omitted] The defendant has the burden of proving the ground of the motion to suppress, i.e. the suggestiveness of the procedure, La.Code Crim.P. art. 703(D), and, in reviewing the procedure, the trial court must look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the identification. [citations omitted] A lineup [either physical or photographic] is unduly suggestive if the identification procedure displays the defendant[s] so that the witness' attention is focused on the defendant[s].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“1) the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the moment of the crime; 2) the degree of attention of the witness; 3) the accuracy of the prior description of the criminal; 4) the level of certainty of the identification; and 5) the elapsed time between the crime and the confrontation.”
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.