Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 130 NH 1 - State v. Bujnowski

State v. Bujnowski’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
4
states following
April 2021
most recently cited

16 district · 43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably 180 W. Va. 342 - State v. England (1988), State v. Taylor (1994)

16 district · 43 state decisions

32019871990200020102020decided

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 United States v. Young · State v. Ruelke · United States v. Vargas · State v. Preston · State v. Scarlett

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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A prosecutor may draw reasonable inferences from the facts proven, and has great latitude in closing argument to both summarize and discuss the evidence presented to the jury and to urge the jury to draw inferences of guilt from the evidence. To constitute prosecutorial misconduct, the government must, either intentionally or through gross negligence, have caused aggravated circumstances to develop which seriously prejudiced a defendant, causing him reasonably to conclude that continuation of the tainted proceeding would result in his conviction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““We do not decide whether the prosecutor’s initial misconduct was sufficient to cause prejudice to the defendant. Though the prosecutor’s initial misconduct may or may not have been enough to require reversal, we are here faced with a different situation. In this case such intentional, repetitive misconduct may well have rendered the court’s curative instructions meaningless.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.