State v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably State v. Grissom (1992), State v. Edgar (2006)
28 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 Zant v. Stephens · Stromberg v. People of State of California · State v. Hunter · State v. Wilson · State v. Turbeville
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is a distinction between Garcia’s rationale that there must be sufficient evidence to convict for both of the separate crimes alleged in the complaint as the underlying crime for proof of felony murder and whether a defendant committed the underlying crime of aggravated robbery by one of several distinct statutory methods, i.e., by force or threat, that constitute the crime of aggravated robbery.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Grissom · State v. Getz““ ‘[a] defendant’s conviction for felony murder need not be vacated because of a rule requiring that a general guilty verdict be set aside if the jury was instructed that it could find the defendant guilty of felony murder on any two or more independent felonies, and one of the felonies is insufficient, if the jury expressly found a legally sufficient felony to support the murder conviction.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Donaldson · State v. Boone““When the information alleges one or more methods for commission of the crime, the general rule is that the instructions should be confined to the charges contained in the information and should not be broader or narrower than the information. Instructions given in violation of the rule, however, are not reversible error if the substantial rights of the defendant have not been prejudiced.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. DeHerrera
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.