Commonwealth v. Chappee’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2017 · most notably California v. Greenwood (1988), 115 Wash. 2d 571 - State v. Boland (1990)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 68 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 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Sandstrom v. Montana · Washington v. Texas · United States v. Nobles · Oliver v. United States · Commonwealth v. Latimore
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The judge’s finding-that the surprise was unfairly prejudicial to the Commonwealth was also well justified. In view of the scientific sophistication of the expected testimony of the witnesses, the prosecutor reasonably could not have been expected to conduct effective cross-examination or to have rebuttal evidence available.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chappee v. Vose“"... the defendant’s experts proposed only to challenge the efficacy of the Commonwealth’s testing procedures, rather than to express their own opinion of the composition of the substance____””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“that the witnesses were in court to advise counsel and that their testimony only was made necessary by inaccuracies in the testimony of Gagnon.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chappee v. Vose
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.