State v. Meeks’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2018
16 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 Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Wade · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · Marron v. United States · Carstea v. Poplar Tree Homeowners Ass'n
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The role that the hearsay rule plays in limiting the fact finder’s consideration to rehable evidence received from witnesses who are under oath and subject to cross-examination has no application to the computer generated record in this ease. Instead, the admissibility of the computer tracing system record should be measured by the reliability of the system, itself, relative to its proper functioning and accuracy. See, e.g., Penny v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 494 , 370 S.E.2d 314, 316-317 (1988); People v. Holowko, 109 Ill.2d 187 , 93 Ill. Dec. 344, 346 , 486 N.E.2d 877, 879 (1985). In this case, the record reflects that persons with special knowledge about the operation of the computer system gave evidence about the accuracy and reliability of the computer tracing so-as to justify the admission of the computer printouts. The rule against hearsay is not implicated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hall“Where the purpose of the search is to find specific property, it should be so particularly described as to preclude the possibility of seizing any other. On the other hand, if the purpose be to seize not specified property, but any property of a specified character which, by reason of its character, and of the place where and the circumstances under which it may be found, if found at all, would be illicit, a description, save as to such character, place and circumstances, would be unnecessary, and ordinarily impossible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McCary“There is no prohibition in the 1989 Sentencing Act against using the same facts and circumstances both to enhance sentences under applicable enhancement factors and to require those sentences to be served consecutively.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Franklin
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.