State v. Cheatam’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
1 district · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably State v. Gregory (2006), State v. Montgomery (2008)
1 district · 55 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 Terry v. Ohio · United States v. Wade · Washington v. Texas · Horton v. California · United States v. Chadwick
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here eyewitness identification of the defendant is a key element of the State's case, the trial court must carefully consider whether expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification would assist the jury in assessing the reliability of eyewitness testimony. In making this determination the court should consider the proposed testimony and the specific subjects involved in the identification to which the testimony relates, such as whether the victim and the defendant are of the same race, whether the defendant displayed a weapon, the effect of stress, etc.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Ferguson · State v. Allen“at an inmate's inventoried property in connection with investigation of a crime unrelated to the one for which the defendant is arrested does not violate the constitution. Id. at 636, 81 P.3d 830 (listing cases). Accordingly, we held that”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Once police have conducted a valid inventory search of an inmate's clothing and other effects at booking, and have placed them in storage for safekeeping in accord with a proper inventory procedure, the inmate has lost any privacy interest in those items that have already lawfully been exposed to police view. He or she is no longer entitled to hold a privacy interest in the already searched items free from further governmental searches. It makes no difference . . . that an investigation is being conducted into a different crime than the one the inmate was arrested for, because one's privacy interest does not change depending on which crime is under investigation once lawful exposure has already occurred.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Jackson · State v. Gregory
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.