Code v. Montgomery’s Empirical Analysis
725 F.2d 1316 · 1984
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably United States v. Domina (1986), Harich v. Dugger (1988)
25 federal appellate · 2 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 Haines v. Kerner · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Rose v. Lundy
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony for both pre- and post-Stovall confrontations. The factors to be considered .... include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation. Against these factors is to be weighed the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order for petitioner to prevail [on his habeas claim], he must convince us that the identification procedure was `so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of misidentification.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kennaugh v. Miller
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.