State v. Muise’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably State v. Clark (1989), United States v. Zamora (2000)
4 federal appellate · 46 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 United States v. Tucker · State v. Tanton · Northern Pueblos Enterprises. v. Montgomery · State v. Brown · State v. Pace
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To determine whether one offense “necessarily involves” another offense, the definitions of the two crimes are examined to determine whether the elements are the same. State v. Sandoval, 90 N.M. 260 , 561 P.2d 1353 (Ct.App.1977). An included offense does not have any element not included in the greater offense so that it is impossible to commit the greater offense without necessarily committing the included offense. State v. Garcia, 100 N.M. 120 , 666 P.2d 1267 (Ct.App.1983). However, this determination is not made in the abstract. “[W]e no longer consider the statutory offenses in a vacuum but instead regard the offenses in light of the facts before us.” State v. Brecheisen, 101 N.M. 38 , 677 P.2d 1074, 1077 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 101 N.M. 11 , 677 P.2d 624 (1984); see also State v. DeMary, 99 N.M. 177 , 655 P.2d 1021 (1982).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bachicha“The test for sufficiency of the evidence is whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence is defined as that evidence which is acceptable to a reasonable mind as adequate support for a conclusion. The jury [is] not obliged to accept defendant’s version of the events.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Barrera“words, acts, gestures or similar means which result in a reasonable fear of personal difficulty or personal injuries if the victim does not submit.”
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.