Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 239 Ga. 697 - Durham v. State

Durham v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
1
states following
July 2011
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably Moses v. State (1980), Potts v. State (1978)

3 federal appellate · 48 state decisions

30019771980199020002010decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Hicks v. State · Johnson v. State · Shouse v. State · Grace v. Hopper

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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Georgia law presumes the sanity of an accused. Alternatively, the law presumes the continued existence of a mental state once proved to exist. * * * [T]his court [has] recognized the obligation of the state to rebut the presumption of insanity which arose after a jury at a special hearing on insanity had found the defendant insane and incompetent to stand trial. The presumption of insanity has been found to arise only after such a jury finding of insanity, however. The presumption of sanity prevails even after a commitment to a mental institution if the accused has been released from that institution. When the defense of insanity has been made under the general plea of not guilty, the defendant is still presumed sane, except in the limited circumstances noted above. The defendant bears the burden of showing, by preponderance of the evidence, that he was not mentally responsible at the time of the alleged crime. The constitutional validity of placing upon the defendant the burden of proving his insanity has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court, [citations omitted.]”
    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.