Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably Davis v. Alaska (1974), Ravin v. State (1975)
50 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 Chapman v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · United States v. Wade · Kotteakos v. United States · Aguilar v. Texas
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the facts supplied must be so detailed as to support an inference of personal knowledge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jones · Keller v. State“Application of this test in the present context requires consideration of various factors; for example, the prior opportunity to observe the alleged criminal act, the existence of any discrepancy between any pre-lineup description and the defendant’s actual description, any identification prior to lineup of another person, the identification by picture of the defendant prior to the lineup, failure to identify the defendant on a prior occasion, and the lapse of time between the alleged act and the lineup identification. It is also relevant to consider those facts which, despite the absence of counsel, are disclosed concerning the conduct of the lineup. 388 U.S. at 241, 87 S.Ct. at 1940, 18 L.Ed.2d at 1165 (footnote omitted). Gf. the similar list of factors set forth in Neil v. Bigg&rs, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kimble v. State“Wigmore suggests that what is minimally required to permit an inference of theft from possession is that the possession be exclusive, unexplained, and fairly close in time to the commission of the crime. The majority of jurisdictions which follow this rule have held that the questions of whether the possession was sufficiently recent and sufficiently exclusive to justify an inference of guilt are questions of fact for the jury. Thus, according to our standard of sufficiency of the evidence, the judge should rule on the question of exclusivity as a matter of law only when the evidence that possession was not exclusive is so persuasive that fair-minded men exercising reasonable judgment could not differ with that conclusion. [Footnotes omitted; emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Snyder 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.