State v. Boutte’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
June 1988
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite · 433 So. 2d 688 - State v. Smith · 391 So. 2d 421 - State v. Gibson
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In deciding whether to suppress identification testimony, we must balance the reliability of such identification against the corrupting influence of the suggestive identification itself. Manson v. Braithwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). State v. Stewart, 389 So.2d 1321 (La.1980). There are five factors used to determine the reliability of an identification. These are set out in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972) and have been followed by our courts. State v. Guillot, 353 So.2d 1005 (La. 1977); State v. Stewart, supra.”
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.