Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 155 N.J. 487 - State v. Nelson

State v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
3
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably State v. Koskovich (2001), State v. Tisius (2002)

33 state decisions

200199820002010decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States · Kyles v. Whitley

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

  1. “[without sufBeient psychological basis, in 1992, defendant underwent sexual reassignment surgery — removing her male genitalia and constructing female genitalia in its place — in an attempt to redress her social problems with being an outcast and a loner. Unlike most people who undergo the surgery as a remedial response to transexuality, defendant did not have the clinically accepted conditions of transsexualism. She did not harbor the persistent, unshakeable sense that she was truly a female even though physically she was a male — that she was a woman “trapped” in a man’s body. Defendant did not want to become a woman in order to reconcile her physical gender with her psychological gender. [ Nelson, supra, 155 N.J. at 516 , 715 A.2d 281 (Handler, J., concurring and dissenting).]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “When a jury is choosing between life and death, it should not be misled into treating the case as one that it is not. The jury should not be told that in choosing between life and death it may not consider the fact that a forty-year-old defendant is likely to spend the next sixty years in prison if its verdict is life. Such an instruction would conflict with our Ramseur holding and impermissibly "hide from the jury the full range of its sentencing options." In future cases, courts should explain to jurors what we mean when we say that the length of the possible sentences other than death should not influence the jury's determination concerning the appropriateness of a death sentence on a murder count.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.