Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 49 OHIOST2D 198 - State v. Miller

State v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably State v. Franklin (1991), Roberts v. Ohio (1978)

25 state decisions

90197719801990200020102020decided

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 Gregg v. Georgia · Jurek v. Texas · First National Bank v. Dickinson · State v. Bayless · Borum v. United States

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

  1. “[f]ingerprints corresponding to those of the accused are sufficient proof of his identity to sustain his conviction, where the circumstances show that such prints, found at the scene of the crime, could only have been impressed at the time of the commission of the crime.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “every other reasonable hypothesis except that of ... guilt”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In determining the sufficiency of the fingerprint evidence, a reviewing court must examine this evidence on a case-by-case basis. The crucial issue is whether attendant circumstances, such as the location of the accused's alleged fingerprint, the character of the premises where the print was found, and the accessibility of the general public to the object on which the print was impressed are sufficient to justify the trier of fact to conclude not only that the accused was at the scene of the crime when it was committed, but also that the accused was the criminal agent.”
    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.