State v. Oliver’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Loigman v. Kimmelman (1986), 219 N.J. Super. 452 - State v. Cusick (1987)
47 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 Roviaro v. United States · McCray v. State of Illinois · Lewis v. United States · Rugendorf v. United States · International Ass'n of Machinists v. Duckworth
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The privilege exists to secure a flow of vital information which can be had only upon a confidential basis. Not all such information comes from people of high motivation. The police must have the aid of men of lesser quality who respond to selfish inducements, including money. These men are needed for what they know, but also for what they can learn because of their associations. This is especially true with respect to crimes of a consensual nature as to which there is little likelihood.that a victim will complain. See Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206 , 87 S.Ct. 424 , 17 L.Ed.2d 312, 316, n. 6 (1966), and McCray v. State of Illinois, 386 U.S. 300 , 87 S.Ct. 1056 , 18 L.Ed.2d 62, 71 (1967). The informer, paid or not, is subject to risks of retaliation which a regular member of a police force need not fear and hence, whether paid or not, he comes within the protection of the privilege.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Florez · State v. Flowers“A witness has a privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of a person who has furnished information purporting to disclose a violation of a provision of the laws of this State or of the United States to a representative of the State or the United States or a governmental division thereof, charged with the duty of enforcing that provision, and evidence thereof is inadmissible, unless the judge finds that (a) the identity of the person furnishing the information has already been otherwise disclosed or (b) disclosure of his identity is essential to assure a fair determination of the issues.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“disclosure of his identity is essential to assure a fair determination of the issues.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.