Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 194 CONN 438 - State v. Rutan

State v. Rutan’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

119
cited by 119 later decisions
2
states following
December 2021
most recently cited

119 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably State v. Spigarolo (1989), State v. Amarillo (1986)

119 state decisions

46019841990200020102020decided

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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Mullaney v. Wilbur · McGautha v. California · State v. Evans

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

  1. “The so-called waiver rule provides that, when a motion for [a judgment of] acquittal at the close of the state's case is denied, a defendant may not secure appellate review of the trial court's ruling without [forgoing] the right to put on evidence in his or her own behalf. The defendant's sole remedy is to remain silent and, if convicted, to seek reversal of the conviction because of insufficiency of the state's evidence. If the defendant elects to introduce evidence, the appellate review encompasses the evidence in toto.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[b]ased on a review of the state's evidence only, the state ha[s] proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of [the crime charged]. On its merits, the defendant's claim is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence at the end of the state's case. Our review of the state's evidence is limited to ... whether [a finder of fact] could have reasonably concluded, upon the facts established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, that the cumulative effect of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    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.