Powell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Powell v. Nevada (1994), Lovell v. State (1997)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 40 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 Gerstein v. Pugh · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · County of Riverside v. McLaughlin · Tehan v. United States Ex Rel. Shott · Petrocelli 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Premeditation is a design, a determination to kill, distinctly formed in the mind at any moment before or at the time of the killing. Premeditation need not be for a day, an hour or even a minute. It may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts of the mind. For if the jury believes from the evidence that the act constituting the killing has been preceded by and has been the result of premeditation, no matter how rapidly the premeditation is followed by the act constituting the killing, it is willful, deliberate and premeditated murder.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[T]he state must prove that a design to kill was distinctly and rationally formed in the mind of the perpetrator, at or before the time the fatal blows were struck.... [I]t [does not] matter how short a time existed between the formation of the design to kill and the killing itself."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Howard v. Gittere · Byford v. State“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ochoa v. State
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.