State v. Rumley’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
February 1983
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Campbell · State v. Kirkaldie · State v. Musgrove · State v. Wong Fong · State v. Nelson
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is the prerogative of the jury to decide the facts, and this Court must uphold such findings when they are supported by substantial evidence. As we stated in State v. Kirkaldie (1978), 179 Mont. 283 , 587 P.2d 1298, 1305 , 35 St.Rep. 1532 , 1539, ‘[t]he jury is the fact-finding body and its decision is controlling. . . Given the required legal minimum of evidence, we will not substitute our determination of the facts for that of the jury. . . If substantial evidence is found to support the verdict, it will stand. . .’ (citations omitted.)” State v. Rumley (1981), Mont., 634 P.2d 446, 449 , 38 St.Rep. 1351A, 1351E.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. McClure
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.