People v. Joseph’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2016
1 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.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a document that has been lost or destroyed and is therefore no longer available for judicial inspection cannot be deemed the 'duplicative equivalent' of Rosario material that has previously been disclosed”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Statements are not the 'duplicative equivalent' of previously produced statements, however, just because they are 'harmonious' or 'consistent' with them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] statement cannot be a 'duplicative equivalent' if it contains even minor differences resulting from errors in transcription.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.