Anderson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2003 · most notably Duckett v. State (1990), State v. DRH (1992)
25 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 Frye v. United States · Schlagenhauf v. Holder · County of Los Angeles v. Chavez-Salido · Frink v. State · Pulakis 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“difficult, and perhaps improper, to formulate a single rule to cover all such cases”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Nelson v. State · Hilburn v. State“[W]e have never authorized expert testimony seeking to establish that a person is a member of a particular class or group, i.e., battered women or sexually abused children, by showing that they exhibit behavioral characteristics common to that group. We agree ... that before such testimony is admitted, the proponent should establish, in a hearing out of the presence of the jury, that the probative value of the testimony outweighs its prejudicial effect. The [Alaska] [S]upreme [C]ourt has suggested that in cases such as this, compliance with [Evidence Rule] 403 should be virtually the equivalent of compliance with the Frye rule. We stress that in order to determine whether the probative value of such evidence would outweigh its prejudicial effect, the trial court should require the proponent of such evidence to identify in advance specifically what he or she intends to prove and why that evidence would be relevant to the case. In deter mining the probative value of such expert testimony, the court should certainly consider the extent to which the expert witnesses’ assumptions are shared by a consensus of those mental health practitioners knowledgeable about the subject matter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Haakanson v. State“when the very real concerns regarding these witnesses’ competency are added to the state’s substantial reliance on psychological testimony regarding behavioral patterns as a means of identifying sexually abused children....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jonas 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.