Dana v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2023
22 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 National Capital Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board · United States v. Irwin · People v. Gissendanner · United States v. Carrion · Alvarado v. State
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Disclosure] must be [granted when} otherwise confidential data [is] relevant and material to the determination of [the defendant's] guilt or innocence, as, for example, when a request for access is directed toward revealing specific "biases, prejudices, or ulterior motives of the witness as they may relate directly to issues or personalities in the case at hand," or when [the request] involves other information which, if known to the trier of fact, could very well affect the outcome of the trial.... [But disclosure need not be granted] when requests to examine [personnel] records are motivated by nothing more than impeachment of witnesses' general credibility [or when} ... the defendant [has] failed to demonstrate any theory of relevancy and materiality, but, instead, merely desire{s] the opportunity for an unrestrained foray into confidential ree-ords in the hope that the unearthing of some unspecified information would enable him to impeach the witness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Booth v. State“[Defense counsel] did not make any showing that the material he wanted from the personnel file would be more than a fishing expedition for unspecified material for impeachment. This is not a sufficient showing to require the trial court to locate the personnel file in the middle of trial, review it in camera, and determine if any information had relevance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cockerham v. State“has been denied in cases in which the defendant failed to demonstrate any theory of relevancy and materiality, but, instead, merely desired the opportunity for an unrestrained foray into confidential records in the hope that the unearthing of some unspecified information would enable him to impeach the witness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cockerham 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.