Elmore v. Foltz’s Empirical Analysis
768 F.2d 773 · 1985
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently June 2012 · most notably United States v. Zambrana (1988), Federal Trade Commission v. World Travel Vacation Brokers, Inc. (1988)
17 federal appellate · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · California v. Trombetta · Anderson v. Harless · Samuel Keener v. L. G. Ridenour, Warden
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.
“evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]hat duty must be limited to evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s defense. To meet this standard of constitutional materiality, ... evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Court reasoned that the Intoxilyzer’s general reliability was reason enough to conclude that preserved breath samples would probably not have been exculpatory. As to the nature of the evidence, the Court determined that defendants could reasonably have obtained comparable evidence: data on possible sources of mechanical error could have been used to impeach the Intoxilyzer’s reliability and, with respect to possible human error, the defendants retained ‘the right to cross-examine the law enforcement officer who administered the Intoxilyzer test, and to attempt to raise doubts in the mind of the fact-finder whether the test was properly administered.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ford v. Seabold
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.