Fresneda v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably United States v. Harris (1970), Lauderdale v. State (1976)
6 federal appellate · 29 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 Terry v. Ohio · Chapman v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Chimel v. California
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it is unlawful for a person to manufacture, compound, counterfeit, possess, have under his control, sell, prescribe, administer, dispense, give, barter, supply or distribute in any manner, a depressant, hallucinogenic or stimulant drug.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bargas v. State“An accomplice's testimony is viewed with distrust, because the accomplice usually believes he has a personal interest in aiding the prosecution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wynne v. State
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.