Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 267 Ark. 6 - Chaviers v. State

Chaviers v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
1
states following
October 2015
most recently cited

67 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Jones v. State (1980), Perry v. State (1982)

67 state decisions

56019791980199020002010decided

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 Upton v. State · Smith v. State · Limber v. State · Carter v. State · Wilson v. State

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

  1. “In pointing out the pertinent testimony on the question of sufficiency of the evidence, we will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, considering only that testimony that lends support to the jury verdict and disregarding any conflicting testimony which could have been rejected by the jury on the basis of credibility. Chaviers v. State, 267 Ark. 7 , 588 S.W. 2d 434 [No. CR 79-148 (filed October 29, 1979)]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “... by the nature of things, one’s intent or purpose, being a state of mind, can seldom be positively known to others so it ordinarily cannot be shown by direct evidence, but may be inferred from the facts and circumstances shown in evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “We have many times said that declaring a mistrial is an extreme and drastic remedy which should be resorted to only when there has been an error so prejudicial that justice could not be served by continuing the trial. . . . The granting or denial of a motion for mistrial lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge and the exercise of that discretion should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of that discretion is shown. . . .”
    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.