State v. Schroder’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably State v. Boppre (1990), State v. Hess (2001)
46 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 Barker v. Wingo · Abney v. United States · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina · State v. Jennings · Waite v. State
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, it is not the province of this court to resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, determine the plausibility of explanations, or weigh the evidence. Such matters are for the finder of fact. The verdict must be sustained if, taking the view most favorable to the State, there is sufficient evidence to support it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ewing · State v. Moore“The appeal in this case is grounded in Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 24-541.01 (Cum. Supp. 1982) and 29-611 (Reissue 1979), each of which grants the right to appeal any county court final order or judgment and any judgment imposing a fine or imprisonment, or both, to the district court. The provisions of these statutes govern the exercise of that right. As such, that right to appeal is of a different nature than the constitutionally based right to a speedy trial, as evidence by our well-established rule that there must be compliance with the requirements set forth in a statute granting the right to appeal or this court gains no jurisdiction over the case. Nicholson v. City of Bellevue, 215 Neb. 540 , 339 N.W.2d 758 (1983); Whitehouse Energy Savers v. Hanlon, 214 Neb. 572 , 334 N.W.2d 802 (1983); State v. Mills, 179 Neb. 853 , 140 N.W.2d 826 (1966).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fehncke“The evidence disclosed in the bill of exceptions therefore corrects whatever error exists in the journal entry. In the case of State v. Schroder, 218 Neb. 860, 867 , 359 N.W.2d 799, 805 (1984), we said: “ ‘[W]hile a recital in a journal entry appearing in the transcript is presumptively true, an affirmative showing in the bill of exceptions that it is not true prevails over the presumption.’ ” See, also, Waite v. State, 169 Neb. 113 , 98 N.W.2d 688 (1959).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Temple
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.