State v. Gurule’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2009 · most notably State v. Lotter (1998), State v. Stahl (1992)
2 district · 24 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 United States v. Russell · Shoup Voting Machine Corp. v. Datamedia Computer Service, Inc. · United States v. Clemons · United States v. Phillips · State v. Kirby
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Nebraska Jury Instruction is phrased in terms of “improper” inducement. The representations made by an undercover agent are almost always false in some particulars and, to some extent, may constitute an inducement to commit the crime. It is improper inducement that gives rise to the defense of entrapment. Overpersuasion, undue pressure, or coercion may constitute improper inducement and entrapment. State v. Ransburg, supra. The important consideration in determining whether entrapment occurred is the predisposition or readiness on the part of the defendant to commit the crime. United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 , 93 S. Ct. 1637 , 36 L. Ed. 2d 366 . Reluctance or unwillingness on the part of the defendant may indicate an absence of predisposition or readiness to commit the offense. These matters are all covered in the Nebraska Jury Instruction____”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bocian““The principal witness for the State in this case was the undercover agent Dillon. Dillon was employed by the State to investigate and gather evidence of drug violations. He was not a regular officer in the sense of a permanent employee, but he was paid a weekly salary while employed and was not employed to seek evidence against a particular person only. “. . . There was nothing to indicate that Dillon had any greater direct personal interest in supplying evidence against the defendant than any other public officer. We find no error in refusing the requested instruction.” 194 Neb. at 622 .”
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.