Elliotte v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 2001
8 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 Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · United States v. Mauro · Gillette Co. v. Miner · 31 Cal. 3d 18 - People v. Shirley · State v. Hurd
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e note our agreement with those courts which have concluded that the pretrial use of hypnosis does not necessarily render the witness incompetent to testify to events recalled prior to being hypnotized. [H]ypnosis has proven to be a useful and apparently essential investigative tool for generating leads in cases where normal police procedures have proven in-adequate_ It also appears that hypnosis has become a fairly standard course of medical treatment for amnesia resulting from traumatic events, including witnessing or being victimized by a criminal act. A criminal trial for rape or assault would present an odd spectacle if the victim was barred from saying anything, including the fact that the crime occurred, simply because he or she submitted to hypnosis sometime prior to trial to aid the investigation or obtain needed medical treatment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McGlauflin v. State“the [open court] requirement is ‘to prohibit ex parte and sua sponte continuances.” ’ (quoting United States v. Ford, 2nd Cir., 550 F.2d 732 , 743 n. 30 (1977), aff'd sub nom., United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340 , 98 S.Ct. 1834 , 56 L.Ed.2d 329 (1978)). The Elliotte Court concluded that an”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bruce 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.