Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 457 A.2d 744 - Deberry v. State

Deberry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
10
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

1 district · 50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Smith v. Van Gorkom (1985), State v. Bailey (1984)

1 district · 50 state decisions — followed in 10 states

1701983199020002010decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Neil v. Biggers · United States v. Agurs · Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States · Giles v. State of Maryland

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

  1. “'[I]f the duty to preserve evidence has been breached, a Delaware court must consider "(1) the degree of negligence or bad faith involved; (2) the importance of the missing evidence, considering the probative value and reliability of secondary or substitute evidence that remains available; and (3) the sufficiency of the other evidence used at trial to sustain conviction.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “1) would the requested material, if extant in the possession of the State at the time of the defense request, have been subject to disclosure under Criminal Rule 16 or Brady? 2) if so, did the government have a duty to preserve the material? 3) if there was a duty to preserve, was the duty breached, and what consequences should flow from a breach?”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Superior Court Criminal Rule 16(b) provides in part: Other Books, Papers, Documents or Tangible Objects. The defendant may serve upon the Attorney General a request to permit the defendant or someone acting on his behalf to inspect and copy or photograph designated books, papers, documents, tangible objects, buildings or places, copies or portions thereof which are within the possession, custody or control of the State, upon a showing that the items sought may be material to the preparation of his defense and that the request is reasonable. ...”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.