State v. Norgard’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently December 2007 · most notably State v. Walton (1989), State v. Gallegos (1994)
44 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 State v. Bearden · State v. Evans · 85 Cal. App. 2d 686 - People v. Houser · State v. Quintana · State v. Dutton
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In reviewing the sufficiency of the-evidence to support a conviction the evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to the state, and all reasonable inferences must be resolved against defendant. In considering whether a verdict is contrary to the evidence we do not decide whether we would reach the same conclusion as the jury. The question is whether there is competent evidence to support the conclusions found.” State v. Norgard, 103 Ariz. 381, 382 , 442 P.2d 544 ,. 545 (1968).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Prewitt · State v. Salerno““ * * * In addition, we might point out that the errors in the instruction were not complained of at the trial, but are being raised for the first time on appeal. We have held many times that this Court will only consider such questions as were raised at trial with respect to errors or omissions in the giving of instructions unless such claimed error is so fundamental that it is manifest the defendant did not receive a fair trial. State v. Johnson, 99 Ariz. 52 , 406 P.2d 403 ; State v. George, supra [ 95 Ariz. 366 , 390 P.2d 899 ]; State v. Evans, supra [ 88 Ariz. 364 , 356 P.2d 1106 ].””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown · State v. Peats““ ‘In order to sustain a conviction it is not necessary that the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime be made positively or in a manner free from inconsistencies. It is the function of the jury to pass upon the strength or weakness of the identification and the uncertainness of the witness in giving her testimony.’ People v. Houser, 85 Cal.App.2d 686 , 193 P.2d 937 , at page 941.” State v. Norgard, supra, 103 Ariz., at 383 , 442 P.2d at 546 ; State v. Tafoya, (May, 1969), 104 Ariz. 424 , 454 P.2d 569 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown
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.