State v. Murray’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 district · 122 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably State v. Warholic (2006), State v. Brown (2006)
2 district · 122 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 Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Pemberton · State v. Whelan · In re Valerie D. · State v. Sivri · Bustos v. West
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is difficult to imagine how the intent to cause death does not encompass an intent to injure when death is the ultimate impairment of one's physical condition. Therefore, one cannot intend to cause death without necessarily intending to cause a physical injury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the mechanisms for providing for and dismissing alternate jurors, and the circumstances under which they may be substituted for regular jurors, do not implicate ... constitutional rights”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The test to be applied in determining whether a statute is mandatory or directory is whether the prescribed mode of action is the essence of the thing to be accomplished, or in other words, whether it relates to a matter of substance or a matter of convenience. . . . If it is a matter of substance, the statutory provision is mandatory. If, however, the legislative provision is designated to secure order, system and dispatch in the proceedings, it is generally held to be directory, especially where the requirement is stated in affirmative terms unaccompanied by negative words. . . . Doe v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 240 Conn. 671 , 680-81 , 694 A.2d 1218 (1997).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.