Orr v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently July 2019
23 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense · Streeter v. United States · Kirby v. Illinois · Bruce v. State
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The law does not require that the proponent account for 'every hand through which the sample passes.' Fendley v. Ford, supra, 458 N.E.2d at 1169 . The chain of custody is established if the court may reasonably conclude from the evidence that the specimen passed through time and various hands in a relatively undisturbed fashion to the point where it is subjected to analysis. Id. The record reveals that the time which lapsed between the taking of the sample in the emergency room and the receipt of the sample in the chemistry lab was, at most, fifteen minutes. Nurse Richmond testified that she was present when the blood was drawn and injected into the presealed vial. Carey received the vial-seal unbroken-a few minutes later in the chemistry lab. There is no evidence of tampering, mistake, or contamination. Therefore, the evidence here clearly established a proper chain of custody." Id. at 682. (emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Gibson v. State · Walker v. State“"However, it is not necessary to account for every minute or every hand through which the sample passes. A proper showing requires only the production of evidence from which the trial court may reasonably conclude that the specimen passed through time and various hands in a relative undisturbed fashion to the point where it is subjected to analysis."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gibson v. State“When fungible evidence is subjected to analysis or testing, it is incumbent upon the State to present evidence of the doctor or someone in authority who was present at the time of the taking of the specimen and to further demonstrate .a chain of custody of the specimen to the lab where the testing was made and the conclusions drawn. (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hayes 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.