State v. Proctor

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• observing that only the method by which the blood spatter was collected is novel, all other aspects of the pathologist’s investigation are well known in the field of blood spatter analysis
• observing that only the method by which the blood spatter was collected is novel, all other aspects of the pathologist's investigation are well known in the field of blood spatter analysis
• observing that \[o]nly the method by which [the blood spatter was] collected is novel; all other aspects of [the pathologist's] investigation are well known in the field of blood spatter analysis\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Roberts
  Washington Supreme Court· 2000-12-14· cited 341×
• Robinson v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 1990-09-21· cited 27×
• Franco v. State
  Tex. App. Ct., 8th Dist. (El Paso)· 2000-08-30· cited 22×
• State v. Boots
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1989-01-11· cited 11×
• State v. Roberts
  Washington Supreme Court· 2001-02-02· cited 8×
• State v. Umphrey
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1990-02-14· cited 8×

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Brown
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1984-07-10· cited 292×
• State v. Seeger
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1971-01-07· cited 28×
• State v. Boots
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1989-01-11· cited 11×
• State v. Payton
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1974-10-07· cited 3×
• State v. Curry
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1987-10-21· cited 1×