Daniel v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2025 · most notably Valdez v. State (2008), Commonwealth v. Adjutant (2005)
6 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Ring v. Arizona · Caldwell v. Mississippi · Woodson v. North Carolina · United States v. Robinson
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n appellant must demonstrate that the subject matter of the missing portions of the record was so significant that the appellate court cannot meaningfully review an appellant's contentions of error and the prejudicial effect of any error.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Appellant asserts that before dismissing the jurors the district court should have granted his request to poll them to determine whether they had unanimously rejected death and were deadlocked over a lesser sentence. Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. Cf. People v. Hickey, 103 Mich.App. 350 , 303 N.W.2d 19 , 21 (1981); A Juvenile v. Com., 392 Mass. 52 , 465 N.E.2d 240 (1984).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“evidence of specific acts showing that the victim was a violent person is admissible if [the] defendant . . . was aware of those acts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.