State v. Griffith’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 2014
9 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 18 Cal. 3d 208 - In Re Andrews · State v. Owsley · State v. Clevenger · 466 So. 2d 256 - Brosz v. State · Williams 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The invited error doctrine is well settled in Idaho. A defendant may not request a particular ruling by the trial court and later argue on appeal that the ruling was erroneous This doctrine applies to sentencing decisions as well as to rulings during trial. There are, of course, limits to this doctrine. It would not apply to a requested sentence that violates the court's statutory authority. Neither would it apply to a request made without any apparent tactical purpose. Moreover, relief might be appropriate if defense counsel heedlessly disregarded his client's legitimate interests, or otherwise provided ineffective assistance, in a sentencing proceeding.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carper · State v. Leyva
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.