Forbes v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably State v. Dabkowski (1986), State v. Dicks (1981)
50 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno · Manson v. Brathwaite
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.
“Following the full reporting of Ballard , there appears in 18 A.L.R.3d beginning on page 1433, an annotation headed ‘Requiring Complaining Witness in Prosecution for Sex Crimes to Submit to Psychiatric Examination.’ This annotation reveals that the general rule supports such examinations on a discretionary basis. We hold that in any case involving a sex violation, the trial judge has the inherent power to compel a psychiatric or psychological examination of the victim, where such examination is necessary to insure a just and orderly disposition of the cause. Such power should be invoked only for the most compelling of reasons, all of which must be documented in the record. This discretion should be exercised sparingly.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Barone · State v. Ballard“(1) The opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, (2) The witness’ degree of attention, (3) The accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, (4) The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, (5) The tíme between the crime and the confrontation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“This question came before the California Supreme Court in Ballard v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 64 Cal.2d 159 , 49 Cal.Rptr. 302 , 410 P.2d 838 , 18 A.L.R.3d 1416 (1968). After holding that a general rule requiring psychiatric examination of complaining witnesses in sex cases would be both unnecessary and inappropriate, the Court said: Rather than formulate a fixed rule in this matter we believe that discretion should repose in the trial judge to order a psychiatric examination of the complaining witness in a case involving a sex violation if the defendant presents a compelling reason for such an examinaton. (Emphasis supplied). 49 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 410 P.2d 849 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ballard
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.