Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 76 N.M. 349 - State v. Sneed

State v. Sneed’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
13
states following
February 2008
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 57 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently February 2008 · most notably State v. Copeland (1996), State v. Leavitt (1968)

4 federal appellate · 57 state decisions — followed in 13 states

19019661970198019902000decided

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 Higgins v. United States · Villano v. United States · Channel v. United States · State v. Miller · United States v. Dornblut

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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The question of whether consent has been given is a question of fact subject to the limitations of judicial review. * * * Each case must stand or fall on its own special facts, and in the trial court’s judgment of the credibility of the witnesses. * * * “The circumstances of the claimed consent were presented to the trial court. We decline to hold, that as a matter of law, the trial court was in error in denying the motion. * * * ””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““We hold that mathematical odds are not admissible as evidence to identify a defendant in a criminal proceeding so long as the odds are based on estimates, the validity of which have not been demonstrated.” (Italics supplied.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““A search and seizure may be made without a search warrant if the individual freely and intelligently gives his unequivocal and specific consent to the search. The consent is not voluntary if it is the product of duress or coercion, actual or implied. The consent must be proven by clear and positive evidence and the burden of proof is on the state.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.