Cavender v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1890
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 1980 · most notably Ruetz v. State (1978), Christen v. State (1950)
44 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 Binns v. State · Stout v. State · Kistler v. State · McQueen v. State · Sumner 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The true test by which to determine the value of circumstantial evidence, in respect to its suffi ciency to warrant a conviction in a criminal case, is, not whether the proof establishes circumstances which are consistent,- or which coincide with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, but whether the circumstances, satisfactorily established, are of so conclusive a character, and point so surely and unerringly to the guilt of the accused as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. The force of circumstantial evidence being exclusive in its character, the mere coincidence of a given number of circumstances with the hypothesis of guilt, or that they would account for, or concur with, or render probable the guilt of the accused, is not a reliable or admissable test, unless the circumstances rise to such a degree of cogency and force as, in the order of natural causes and eifect, to exclude, to a moral certainty, every other hypothesis except the single one of guilt.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Osbon 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.