Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 90 S.D. 682 - State v. Sahlie

State v. Sahlie’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
3
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

76 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably State v. Goodroad (1997), State v. Floody (1992)

76 state decisions

400197619801990200020102020decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Berger v. United States

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

  1. “Initially, the request must be made in good faith. The request must be reasonable in all respects. The request must be timely and must set forth specific reasons which seem to make such services needed or necessary to the defendant. The request must specify that the defendant is financially unable to obtain the required service himself and that such services would otherwise be justifiably obtained were the defendant financially able.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is axiomatic to a fair trial that the state obey the court's orders concerning the conduct of the trial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Whenever, in a civil or criminal proceeding, issues arise upon which the court deems expert evidence is desirable, the court, on its own motion, or on the request of either the state or the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or of any party in a civil proceeding, may appoint one or more experts, not exceeding three on each issue, to testify at the trial.”
    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.