Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1 Nev. 770 - Garner v. State

Garner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 2023

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions

110200020102020decided

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 · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Griffith v. Kentucky · McGee v. County of Orange · Wilkins v. State

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

  1. “with convictions predating Byford, neither the use of the Kazalyn instruction nor the failure to give instructions equivalent to those set forth in Byford provides grounds for relief.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Premeditation is a design, a determination, to kill, distinctly formed in the mind at any moment before or at the time of the killing. Premeditation need not be for a day, an hour or even a minute. It may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts of the mind. For if the jury believes from the evidence that the ad constituting the killing has been preceded by and has been the result of premeditation, no matter how rapidly the premeditation is followed by the act constituting the killing, it is unllful, deliberate and premeditated murder.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “when a person enters into a common plan or scheme but does not intend a particular crime committed by the principal, the person is liable for the crime if `in the ordinary course of things [the crime] was the natural or probable consequence of such common plan or scheme.”
    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.