State v. Clayton’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably State v. Dumlao (1985), State v. Larsen (1993)
34 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 11 Cal. 3d 639 - Brown v. Colm · State v. Carlson · Reeves v. Markle · 10 Utah 2d 34 - State v. Ward · 24 Utah 2d 255 - State v. Schad
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[O]nce the expert is qualified by the court, the witness may base his [or her] opinion on reports, writings, or observations not in evidence which were made or compiled by others, so long as they are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in that particular field. The opposing party may challenge the suitability or reliability of such materials on cross-examination, but such challenge goes to the weight to be given the testimony, not to its admissibility."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“In light of the other jury instructions and the evidence presented, there is no reason to suppose that the jury misunderstood that the defendant had to be aware, i.e., possess actual knowledge, that the checks she wrote would not be honored. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the jury gave undue weight to the evidence by being instructed that reasonable doubt”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McClain“The traditional rule has limited an expert’s opinion testimony to personal experience and observation.... More recently, [Rule] 703 has broadened the basis for an expert’s testimony by specifying that facts or data used in forming an opinion or inference need not be admissible if of the type reasonably relied on by experts in the witness’ field of expertise.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Patey v. Lainhart
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.