State v. Shaw’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably 22 Cal. 3d 318 - People v. Wetmore (1978), Hester v. State (1974)
10 federal appellate · 73 state decisions — followed in 18 states
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 Rochin v. People of California · Morissette v. United States · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Palko v. State of Connecticut · Lisenba v. People of State of California
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * The first trial then would involve only proof that an act of a criminal nature had been committed, and that the defendant committed it. In effect, this gives rise to a presumption of intent, premeditation, or malice which runs counter to the commonlaw and constitutional concepts of criminal law. The second trial is limited solely to the question of legal insanity, the guilt of the defendant having already been determined. There is no provision, nor realistically could there be, to determine also intent, premeditation, or malice in reduction of the degree of the crime. Thus, the presumption raised in the first trial becomes an irrebuttable presumption. Such a presumption is in violation of due process, * * *.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"A. In any case where the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity is asserted, two trials shall be set unless good cause for a single trial is shown. "B. The first trial shall determine the issue of guilt or innocence and, if appropriate, the degree of the crime. The multiple trial concept shall not affect the judicial burden of proof or the applicability of § 13-131. At the discretion of the court, the jury may be informed that there may be two trials and what issues will be decided at each. "C. If the defendant is found guilty at the first trial, there shall be a second trial following promptly after the first trial. At the second trial, the jury shall consider the defense of insanity and, if appropriate, the defendant's present mental condition with regard to commitment to a mental institution. * * *" [Emphasis added]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““A person shall not be examined as a witness in the following cases: ****** “5. A physician or surgeon, without consent of his patient, as to any information acquired in attending the patient which was necessary to enable him to prescribe or act for the patient.””
2 later decisions 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.