Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1999 SD 15 - State v. Shadbolt

State v. Shadbolt’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
December 2010
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 2010

9 state decisions

50199920002010decided

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 Taylor v. Taintor · Petition of Famous Brands, Inc. · Kuper v. Lincoln-Union Electric Co. · Montgomery v. Disciplinary Board · 85 Ohio App. 356 - State, Ex Rel. Howell v. Schiele, Treas.

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

  1. “On issues supported by competent evidence in the record, the trial court should instruct the jury. The trial court is not required to instruct on issues lacking support in the record. Failure to give a requested instruction that correctly sets forth the law is prejudicial error. Jury instructions are reviewed as a whole and áre sufficient if they correctly state the law and inform the jury. Error is not reversible unless it is prejudicial. The burden of demonstrating prejudice in failure to give a proposed instruction is on the party contending the error.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “As a general precept, common law is in force, except where it conflicts with the will of the sovereign power as expressed through the constitution, statutory enactments, and ordinances. SDCL 1-1-23, 1-1-24. See also McKellips v. Mackintosh, 475 N.W.2d 926, 929 (S.D. 1991). Where a statute is in derogation of common law, it should be "liberally construed with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice." SDCL 2-14-12.”
    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.