State v. Golding’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 district · 5,364 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5,366 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably State v. Singh (2002), State v. Stevenson (2004)
2 district · 5,364 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 Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Harrington v. California · Screws v. United States
Cited together with State v. Williams · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · State v. Evans · Blockburger v. United States · State v. Stevenson
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 5,366 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation ... exists and ... deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt.”
109 later decisions quote this exact passage“The defendant bears the responsibility for providing a record that is adequate for review of his claim of constitutional error.... The defendant also bears the responsibility of demonstrating that his claim is indeed a violation of a fundamental constitutional right.... Finally, if we are persuaded that the merits of the defendant's claim should be addressed, we will review it and arrive at a conclusion as to whether the alleged constitutional violation ... exists and whether it ... deprived the defendant of a fair trial.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“once identified, unpreserved evidentiary claims masquerading as constitutional claims will be summarily dismissed”
4 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.