Springfield v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

cited by 50 later decisions

states following

January 2023

most recently cited

49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably 173 Ill. 2d 167 - People v. Miller (1996), State v. Copeland (1996)

49 state decisions — followed in 11 states

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 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Barker v. Wingo · Frye v. United States · Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n · Shaw v. Barr

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

“[The standard] is this court's assessment as to whether all of the evidence presented is “adequate to support a reasonable inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to be drawn by the finder of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state.” * * * We do not substitute our judgment for that of the jury in applying this rule, and our only duty is to determine if a quorum of reasonable and rational individuals would, or even could, have come to the same result the jury actually did.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Taul v. State · DeWitt v. State
“The district court should focus on whether accepted protocol was adequately followed in a specific case, but the court, in exercising its discretion, should be mindful that this issue should go more to the weight than to the admissibility of the evidence. Rarely should such a factual determination be excluded from jury consideration. With adequate cautionary instructions from the trial judge, vigorous cross-examination of the government’s experts, and challenging testimony from defense experts, the jury should be allowed to make its own factual determination as to whether the evidence is reliable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Anderson · Lance David Bean v. State
“[I]n ruling upon the offer of such evidence in Wyoming, our trial courts need only be concerned with the requisite foundation. Because it does appear the possibility of an erroneous result is more likely to arise from the testing techniques than from the procedure, it is important for the trial court to be satisfied about the manner in which the testing was performed, and the qualifications of the individual who accomplished the scientific technique.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Bunting v. Jamieson · Williams 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.