People v. Morgan’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably People v. Vigil (1986), Hock v. New York Life Insurance Co. (1994)
75 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 Stone v. Powell · 12 Cal. 3d 641 - People v. Hitch · Garcia v. Dist. Court, 21st Jud. Dist. · 87 Wash. 2d 783 - State v. Wright · People v. Hedrick
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This court has recognized a broad discretion in fashioning a proper remedy for the loss or destruction of evidence .... The responsibility of the trial court is to fashion an appropriate remedy which is no more restrictive than necessary to protect the defendant’s right to due process.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the evidence was suppressed or destroyed by the prosecution; (2) whether the evidence is exculpatory; and (3) whether the evidence is material to the defendant’s case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In a Crim.P. 35 proceeding, the [trial] court is the trier of fact.... [and] where the evidence presented to the court supports the findings and judgment ... `the judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed on review.' "). Since the transcript of the providency hearing was not included in the record certified to this court (Murphy failed to provide the transcript to the court of appeals), this court must presume that Murphy was properly advised by the trial court under Crim.P. 11 [8] of the effects of the guilty plea prior to accepting it. It can be reasonably inferred that, given the defendant's substantial experience with the criminal justice system, and the fact that Murphy had previously been convicted of three felonies, he was fully aware of the benefits of entering into the plea bargain. Crim.P. 35(c)(3) enables a trial court to deny a defendant's motion for post-conviction relief without holding a hearing "[w]here the motion and the record of the case show, to the satisfaction of the court, that the [defendant] is not entitled to relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Murphy v. People
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.