State v. Higgins’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
165 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 168 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably State v. Hornbuckle (1989), State v. Turner (1981)
165 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 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno
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 168 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(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, and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Holt · State v. Johnson“The informants neither witnessed nor participated in the actions preliminary to or the commission of the crime. The information provided was based principally on hearsay and the overhearing of statements of the defendant going solely to the question of probable cause for issuance of an arrest warrant. In McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 312-313 , 87 S.Ct. 1056 , [1063-1064] 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967), it was stressed that an informant’s identity need not be disclosed when his testimony solely went to procedural aspects of the criminal proceedings, such as the presence of probable cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Mitchell““Assuming arguendo the photo spread techniques were impermissibly suggestive, we find no want of due process in the trial court’s rulings on the identification testimony. Reliability, not suggestiveness, ‘is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony . . . ’ Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 , 97 S.Ct. 2243, 2253 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977); State v. Carter, 572 S.W.2d 430, 435 (Mo. banc 1978) and reliability of the in-court identification testimony is to be assessed under the ‘totality of the circumstances.’ . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. McFarland
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.