State v. Karlen’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably State v. Guthrie (2001), Goetz v. State (2001)
36 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 Barker v. Wingo · Davis v. Alaska · United States v. Nixon · Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · Doggett v. United States
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`We do not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, determine the plausibility of an explanation, or weigh the evidence.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Charles · State v. Verhoef“The standard of review for denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is whether the “evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.” “When reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, this [C]ourt, considers the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict.” “A guilty verdict will not be set aside if the state’s evidence and all favorable inferences that can be drawn therefrom support a rational theory of guilt.” “We do not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of the witnesses, determine the plausibility of an explanation, or weigh the evidence.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[E]vidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the- evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A ‘reasonable probability 5 is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.