March v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 2023
24 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 Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · Jones v. Jennings · Putnam v. State · Dana v. State · Koehler 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While officers have a duty to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence actually gathered during a criminal investigation, the due process clause has never required officers to undertake a state-of-the-art investigation of all reported crimes.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Snyder v. State · Sawyer v. State“We are concerned that the trial court's requirement that March demonstrate the admissibility of [the] materials in [the trooper's] file as a prerequisite to in camera review of the file may have been unduly stringent. A party seeking discovery cannot be expected to convincingly argue admissibility in a vacuum, without knowing the precise character of the information in the confidential file. Nor can the trial court make an informed ruling on the dis-coverability of confidential materials without having reviewed them. As long as the party seeking discovery has a good faith basis for asserting that the materials in question may lead to the disclosure of favorable evidence, the trial court should conduct an in camera review before ruling on a request for discovery.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Booth v. State“Here, because [the defendant] did not request a mistrial, declaration of a mistrial would have violated his double jeopardy right absent an independent basis for concluding that there was a “manifest necessity” for a mistrial. Koehler, 519 P.2d at 448 ; Browning v. State, 707 P.2d 266, 269 (Alaska App.1985). The record in this case does not disclose the “very extraordinary and striking circumstances” under which a mistrial may be declared without the defendant’s consent. Lewis v. State, 452 P.2d 892, 896 (Alaska 1969). We find no error in the court’s failure to declare a mistrial sua-sponte.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nelson 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.