Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 435 A.2d 321 - State v. Castore

State v. Castore’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
7
states following
February 2014
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably State v. Rimmasch (1989), State v. Saldana (1982)

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 24 state decisions

1301981199020002010decided

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 State v. Contreras · Weldon v. United States · Morgan v. Washington Trust Company · State v. Levitt · State v. Porraro

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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The jury will benefit from expert testimony ‘when the subject matter of the inquiry is one involving special skills and training beyond the ken of the average layman. If all the facts and circumstances can be accurately described to a jury and if the jury is as capable of comprehending and understanding such facts and drawing correct conclusions from them as is the expert, there is no necessity for the expert testimony.’ ” State v. Castore, 435 A.2d 321, 326 (R.I.1981) (quoting Barenbaum v. Richardson, 114 R.I. 87, 90-91 , 328 A.2d 731, 733 (1974)).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““but solely on what she had related to him about what went on within the walls of the Castore home. Because his opinion was based on evidence that was not within the realm of his medical capabilities or expertise, and in fact was based on testimony that had already been presented to the jury, it amounted to nothing more than his assessment of the credibility of [the victim’s] testimony. It is beyond dispute that a determination of the credibility of a witness is solely within the purview of the jury.” Id. at 326 .”
    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.