State v. Gilstrap’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2004 · most notably United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co. (1946), State v. Gardner (1951)
2 federal appellate · 23 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.
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““After mature consideration, we firmly adhere to the rule so forcibly expressed in State v. Levelle, supra; and we may add that the doctrine that a criminal act may be excused or mitigated because prompted by an irresistible impulse, where the offender has the mental capacity to appreciate his legal and moral duty in respect to it, has no place in the law.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Allen · State v. Fuller““The rule followed in this State, and we think in most jurisdictions, is that if upon the whole case, it appears to the Court that the defendant was prejudiced by the language used, as the result of which he did not have a fair and impartial trial it would be the duty of the Court to reverse the case and remand it for a new trial. However, as was said in State v. Duncan, 86 S. C. 370, 68 S. E. 684, 685 , Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1016: Tf the record shows that no other verdict could have been found upon any reasonable view of the evidence, we are safe in concluding that no harm was done’.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Burnett“[a]n argument of this nature addressed to the jury tends to completely destroy and nullify all sense of impartiality in a case of this kind. Its logical effect is to arouse passion and prejudice. Jurors are sworn to be governed by the evidence and it is their duty to regard the facts of a case impersonally. We have no idea that the able Solicitor intended to arouse prejudice or passion. But statements of this character are well calculated to bring about this result.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Von Dohlen v. State
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.