Goldring v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 2022
13 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Commonwealth v. Root · Poole v. State · Campbell v. State · Palmer 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Every person causing the death of another as the result of the driving, operation or control of an automobile ... in a grossly negligent manner, shall be guilty of a felony----”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The second element the State must prove is gross negligence; that is, that the Defendant had a wanton or reckless disregard for human life in the operation of his automobile. The object for disregard must be human life and not merely safety—human safety or—or property. Speed alone is ordinarily insufficient, and the care required must be proportioned to the danger. This deals with his—his state of mind, and his conduct has to have been of such an extraordinary or outrageous character to imply that state of mind. Only conduct that is of extraordinary or outrageous character will be sufficient to imply the state of mind of gross negligence. Simple negligence would not be enough. Now, simple negligence is carelessness. It’s defined in the law as the doing of some act that a person using ordinary care would not do, or not doing some act that a person using ordinary care would do. Even reckless driving may not be enough to imply the state of mind of gross negligence. Reckless driving may be a strong indication, but unless it is of extraordinary or outrageous character, it ordinarily will not be sufficient. Speed alone is ordinarily insufficient to prove gross negligence. Speed cannot be looked upon in a vacuum, but must be looked upon in light of all of the other factors and circumstances of the case. Let me illustrate the point with a hypothetical example which is totally unrelated to the evidence in this case. Speeding through a school zone in excess of the speed limit on a rura”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the reviewing court is not to “ask itself whether it believes the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”; rather, the duty of an appellate court is only to determine “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.