State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2011
24 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Simmons v. United States · Doyle v. Ohio · Marino v. Ortiz · Marino v. Ortiz
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the status of being an alcoholic [or a drug addict], without more, does not open witnesses to cross-examination concerning their ability to perceive, recollect or narrate relevant facts. Id . In the present civil matter, the respondent has not established a sufficient relationship between Ms. B.'s alleged condition and her ability to observe, remember and narrate relevant facts. Even if he did, this does not open the door into the arena of the protected records. The disclosure of such records is governed by federal law. The Drug Abuse Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-3 , et sequitur, governs the confidentiality of the records. The conditions under which those records and alcohol records may be disclosed are set forth are set forth in 42 Code of Federal Regulations § 2.1 et seq. (hereinafter called the Regulations). CT Page 9804 Under the regulations, a court may order disclosure of confidential communications made by a patient to a federally funded drug treatment program only if one of the exceptions set forth under 42 C.F.R. § 2.64 applies. In the absence of consent, "[a]n order authorizing the disclosure of patient records for purposes other than criminal investigation or prosecution may be applied for by any person having a legally recognized interest in the disclosure which is sought.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“evidence of a witness' mental condition may be admitted if the defendant establishes that a relationship exists between the condition and the [witness'] capacity to observe, remember and narrate relevant facts. . . . Absent such a showing, evidence of the condition and treatment may be excluded as irrelevant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In State v. Hull, supra, 491 , our Supreme Court noted that testimony concerning investigative effort that refers to a defendant's postarrest silence is constitutionally permissible [in certain limited circumstances, such as]”
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.