State v. Yamada’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 2024
18 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 32 Cal. 3d 388 - Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. · 20 Cal. 3d 150 - People v. Honeycutt · United States v. Barrett · United States v. Springfield · State v. Furutani
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he granting or denial of a motion for new trial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he defendant must first make a prima facie showing of a deprivation that could substantially prejudice his or her right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. We also suggested that the defendant should first present some specific, substantial evidence showing a juror was possibly biased. Once the defendant has satisfied this burden, the trial court then determines whether the nature of the alleged deprivation rises to the level of being substantially prejudicial. If the trial court determines that the alleged deprivation is substantially prejudicial, the trial court then becomes duty bound to further investigate the totality of circumstances surrounding the alleged deprivation to determine its impact on jury impartiality.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Silver · State v. Chin.“The standard of review for a trial court’s issuance or refusal of a jury instruction is whether, when read and considered as a whole, the instructions given are prejudi-cially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading. Erroneous instructions are presumptively harmful and are a ground for reversal unless it affirmatively appears from the record as a whole that the error was not prejudicial. In other words, error is not to be viewed in isolation and considered purely in the abstract.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bailey
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.