State v. Barrera’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably State v. Frazier (2007), State v. Rogers (2009)
75 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 · Moran v. Burbine · Davis v. United States · State v. Gomez · Swafford 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Substantial evidence consists of relevant evidence that might be accepted by a reasonable mind as adequate to support a conclusion. This Court resolves all disputed facts and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the successful party and disregards all evidence and inferences to the contrary, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision. We must be mindful that it is the role of the trial court, and not the appellate court, to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses. We do not substitute our own judgment for a determination of the trial court supported by substantial evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gutierrez · State v. Salas“[a]ctual prejudice requires a direct investigation into the attitudes of potential jurors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Romero · State v. Vasquez“The venue in all civil and criminal cases shall be changed, upon motion, to another county free from exception ... when the party moving for a change files in the case an affidavit of himself, his agent or attorney, that he believes he cannot obtain a fair trial in the county in which the case is pending because ... of public excitement or local prejudice in the county in regard to the case or the questions involved in the case, an impartial jury cannot be obtained in the county to try the case____”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Salas
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.