State v. Lambert’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably State v. Herrick (2011), State v. Bolaski (2014)
39 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 State v. Roy · State v. Pelican · Ball v. Melsur Corp. · State v. Kinney · State v. Brooks
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) there must be an error; (2) the error must be obvious; (8) the error must affect substantial rights and result in prejudice to the defendant; and (4) we must correct the error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. When reviewing possible error in a jury instruction, we examine the instructions in light of the record evidence as a whole and determine if any error would result in a miscarriage of justice. Moreover, we review the instructions in their entirety. If the charge as a whole is not misleading, there is no plain error. This is a very high bar — we find plain error only in rare and extraordinary cases.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[e]rror will be assigned only when the entire charge undermines our confidence in the verdict, and only in extraordinary cases will we find plain error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“in their entirety, assigning error only when the entire charge undermines confidence in the verdict.”
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.