State v. Sivri’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 district · 376 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 378 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Connecticut v. Porter (1997), State v. Brown (1995)
2 district · 376 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 Illinois v. Gates · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Patterson v. New York · Yagow v. United States
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 378 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it can be inferred that, if the defendant has caused a grievous wound that could cause the victim's death if not treated promptly, the failure to summon that treatment is consistent with an antecedent intent to cause death.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“as part of the evidence from which a jury may draw an inference of an intent to kill.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The defendant’s [claim] that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the specific intent to cause the death of the victim ... was considered by the Supreme Court in Sivri I . On less evidence than was presented in the case now before us, the Supreme Court held that “[a]lthough the evidence certainly did not mandate an inference of an intent to kill, we conclude that [all of the permissible inferences] taken together ... [reasonably support] the inference of an intent to kill that the jury drew.” Two justices dissented from that holding, and the defendant asks us to adopt the dissenting view. This would require us to overrule the majority, which we are powerless to do. This court will not reexamine or reevaluate Supreme Court precedent. Because we are bound by the majority decision in Sivri I , independent analysis by this court on the intent issue would be a futile endeavor. 2”
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.