Loserth v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
112 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably State v. Ross (2000), Ibarra v. State (1999)
112 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 Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Ornelas v. United States · Manson v. Brathwaite · Miller v. Fenton
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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) The witness’s degree of attention; (3) The accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the criminal; (4) The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and (5) The length of time between the crime and the confrontation.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]s a general rule, the appellate courts, including this Court, should afford almost total deference to a trial court’s determination of the historical facts that the record supports especially when the trial court’s fact findings are based on an evaluation of credibility and demean- or. The appellate courts, including this Court, should afford the same amount of deference to trial courts’ rulings on ‘application of law to fact questions,’ also known as ‘mixed questions of law and fact,’ if the ultimate resolution of those questions turns on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. The appellate courts may review de novo ‘mixed questions of law and fact’ not falling within this category. This Court may exercise its discretion to review de novo these decisions by the intermediate appellate courts.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Vargas v. State · Fiedler v. State“[I]f the totality of the circumstances reveals no substantial likelihood of mis-identification despite a suggestive pretrial procedure, subsequent identification testimony will be deemed “reliable,” “reliability [being] the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Balderas v. State · Wilson 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.