State v. Chapple’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 4 district · 520 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 558 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably 37 Cal. 3d 351 - People v. McDonald (1984), United States v. Downing (1985)
19 federal appellate · 4 district · 520 state decisions — followed in 32 states
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 Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite
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 558 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice,'”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he phrase 'within the discretion of the trial court' is often used but the reason for that phrase being applied to certain issues is seldom examined. One of the primary reasons an issue is considered discretionary is that its resolution is based on factors which vary from case to case and which involve the balance of conflicting facts and equitable considerations. Walsh v. Centeio, 692 F.2d 1239 , 1242 (9th Cir.1982). Thus, the phrase 'within the discretion of the trial court' does not mean that the court is free to reach any conclusion it wishes. It does mean that where there are opposing equitable or factual considerations, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“In State v. Thomas, 110 Ariz. 120 , 515 P.2d 865 (1973), we identified the following uses for which photographs of a corpse may be admitted in a homicide prosecution: to prove the corpus delicti, to identify the victim, to show the nature and location of the fatal injury, to help determine the degree or atrociousness of the crime, to corroborate state witnesses, to illustrate or explain testimony, and to corroborate the state’s theory of how and why the homicide was committed. Id. at 130 , 515 P.2d at 875 .”
5 later decisions 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.