State v. Lynch’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently May 2007 · most notably State v. Olds (1978), Klein v. General Electric Co. (1986)
44 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 Wong Sun v. United States · Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States · Nardone v. United States · Davis v. Mississippi · United States v. Ash
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he identification testimony was admissible, because the identification by Mrs. Daugherty was not causally connected with the arrest but rather with the robbery itself, and because the identifica tion testimony emanated from a source independent of the arrest, i. e., her recollections and. observations at the time of the robbery. Mrs. Daugherty testified that the appellant was in visual proximity with her for at least fifteen minutes under conditions which she described as well-lighted. The defendant stood face-to-face with Mrs. Daugherty on several occasions close enough to take money from her brassiere and close enough to strike her on the head several times with a pistol. Mr. Daugherty was able to give the police a detailed description of her assailant and was positive about her identification. Under these circumstances, it is clear that her identification testimony had an origin and a basis independent of either the arrest or the lineup and was, therefore, admissible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“No law abiding society could tolerate a presumption that but for the illegal arrest the suspect would never have been required to face his accusers. Thus, we conclude that the only effect of the illegal arrest was to hasten the inevitable confrontation and not to influence its outcome. [[Image here]] . We cannot assume that but for the illegal arrest the appellant would have remained at large indefinitely. In either case it is clear that the illegality contributed neither to the knowledge of the witnesses nor to the accuracies] of their identifications.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““when a continuance is sought on the ground of the absence of a witness, the request must give the name of the witness, where he resides, the probability of procuring his testimony and within what time, what facts the witness will prove, and the exercise of due diligence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Henderson
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.