State v. Gilroy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 34 state decisions

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

1. ““[T]his court has heretofore held, in effect, there was sufficient evidence to create a jury issue regarding Gilroy’s participation in the robbery. (Authorities cited). “But defendant argues there is an absence of essential evidence disclosing any money was taken from the Fareway Store at the time here concerned. We are not so persuaded. “Robert Lee Cramer, assistant store manager, testified he checked out the four counter machines immediately after Mr. Bay was shot. This revealed a shortage of $27 in machine No. 4, which ‘did not arise out of the course of business.’ “The foregoing admittedly stands as circumstantial evidence of ‘taking’, an essential element of any robbery. (Authorities cited). But we have often held, such evidence may be equal in value and sometimes more reliable than that which is direct. Where, however, circumstantial evidence alone is relied on as to an essential element, the circumstance or circumstances must be entirely consistent with defendant’s guilt, wholly inconsistent with any rational hypothesis of his innocence, and so convincing as to exclude a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of the offense charged. Like direct evidence it must raise a fair inference of guilt, generating something more than suspicion, speculation or conjecture. (Authorities cited). “In that regard the record, as aforesaid, discloses sufficient evidence upon which the jury could fairly find Gilroy was an accomplice before the fact; accomplice Kelsey entered the Fare”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Kelsey · State v. Cartee

2. ““[I]n considering claimed insufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction we view all evidence in that light most favorable to the State, and accept as established all reasonable inferences tending to support the jury’s action. It is necessary to consider only the supporting evidence whether contradicted or not. Also, it is for the fact finder, not us, to decide questions of fact and determine credibility of witnesses. And a finding of guilt is binding on this court unless without substantial support in the record. (Authorities cited).” State v. Fields, 199 N.W.2d 144, 146-147 (Iowa 1972).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Kelsey