State v. Overstreet’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently September 1996 · most notably State v. Schrier (1981), State v. O'CONNELL (1979)
33 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 State v. Reeves · State v. Buchanan · State v. Cupples · State v. Baskin · State v. Hansen
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is . . . well settled that on defendant’s appeal from criminal conviction based on jury verdict challenging sufficiency of evidence to sustain the verdict, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and accepts as established all reasonable inferences tending to support the jury’s action. It is necessary to consider only the supporting evidence whether contradicted or not. It is for the fact finder, not us, to resolve questions of fact and determine the credibility of witnesses. Thus, a finding of guilt by the trier of fact is binding on this court unless we find it is without substantial support in the record or is clearly against the weight thereof.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McDaniel · State v. Hall“the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, the defendant’s age, character and propensities, and chances of his reform. The courts owe a duty to the public as much as to defendant in determining a proper sentence. The punishment should fit both the crime and the individual. [24 . C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1980; State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1197 , 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Iowa 1967)].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Inger · State v. Remmers“[W]here circumstantial evidence alone is relied on as to an essential element the circumstances must be entirely consistent with defendant’s guilt, wholly inconsistent with any rational hypothesis of innocence, and so convincing as to exclude a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged. Id. at 884 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Veverka · State v. Howard
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.