Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2009 WY 117 - Snow v. State

Snow v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
2
states following
March 2023
most recently cited

36 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · United States v. Olano · Blockburger v. United States · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Brown v. Ohio

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.

  1. “Even when constitutional error is alleged, each criterion must be satisfied or a claim for review under the plain-error doctrine will fail. To establish plain error, the appellant must prove (1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the existence of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; (8) a clear and obvious transgression of that rule of law; and (4) the error adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice to him.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Juries' legal questions, which are what usually prompt supplemental instructions, differ fundamentally from their factual questions for an obvious reason: juries do not serve as the "triers of law." They are not expected to divine the law for themselves the way they are expected to find the facts. Rather, the trial judge, aided by counsel, provides the jury with the proper legal standard. Indeed, when a jury makes explicit its legal difficulties a trial judge should clear them away with concrete accuracy. By contrast, where a jury's questions relate to a factual matter, a substantive reply (whether by the judge or the attorneys) risks interfering with the jury's exclusive responsibility for resolving factual questions. For this reason, several circuits have upheld district courts that refused to answer juries' factual questions(.]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “To establish prejudice, the appellant must show a reasonable probability that [he] would have received a more favorable verdict in the absence of the error.”
    2 later decisions 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.