State v. Maupin’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 153 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 160 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably State v. Hill (1996), State v. Grant (1993)
1 federal appellate · 153 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Allen v. United States · Harris v. New York · Brasfield v. United States · Jenkins v. United States · United States v. Fioravanti
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 160 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A trial court has discretion to determine whether a witness is competent to testify as an expert, and the trial court's decision will not be reversed absent a clear showing that the court abused its discretion.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * Ladies and gentleman of the jury: The court is advised that you have indicated difficulty in reaching a verdict. Now, the court suggests to you that since the trial of this case means a great deal to the parties and to the public, and has been expensive in time, effort, and money, the court urges you to make every reasonable effort to agree on a verdict. “ ‘You may consider that this case must at sometime be decided, and that you were selected in the same manner and from the same source from which any future jury must be selected. “ ‘There is no reason to suppose that the case will ever be submitted to twelve individuals more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent to decide it, or that additional evidence will be produced by either side. “ ‘It is your duty to make every reasonable effort to decide the case if you can conscientiously do so. The court instructs you to return to the jury room and continue your deliberations.’ ” State v. Maupin, supra, at 482, fn. 3 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Marijuana, not being an extract or preparation difficult or impossible to characterize without chemical analysis, but consisting of the dried leaves, stems, and seeds of a plant which anyone reasonably familiar therewith should be able to identify by appearance, it is not error to permit officers who have had experience * * * searching for and obtaining marijuana to testify that a certain substance is marijuana; and other police officers have also been held qualified so to testify."”
3 later decisions 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.