Van Meter v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 2016
1 federal appellate · 10 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 Hawley v. State · Pulakis v. State · Troyer v. State · Rutherford v. State · Pistro 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The central problem regarding admissibility is not that polygraph evidence has proved unreliable, but that polygraph proponents have not yet developed persuasive data demonstrating its reliability. Little worthwhile experimentation has been done to determine the reliability of polygraph evidence. This is not to say that the worth of polygraph evidence cannot ever be proved to the satisfaction of this court.... Judicial acceptance of polygraph tests must await the results of more persuasive experimental proof of reliability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Haakanson v. State“The legislature intends that the exceptions listed in revised AS 11.81.900(b)[ (53) ](B) ... shall not be part of the prosecution’s pleading and proof in its case in chief. Rather, these exceptions must be raised by the defendant. If raised, the prosecution bears the burden of disproving the exception beyond a reasonable doubt. The legislature intends that the exceptions operate as other defenses provided for in the criminal code. See AS 11.81.900(b)(15).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Peratrovich v. State“In passing [current AS 11.81.900(b)(53) ], the legislature intends to change the result reached by the Alaska Court of Appeals in Flink v. State [.] In the Flink case, the court ruled that the legislature intended that crimes involving sexual contact be specific intent crimes.... In adopting [this new definition of “sexual contact”], the legislature intends to reaffirm that crimes involving sexual contact and penetration are general intent crimes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Peratrovich 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.