State v. Marsyla’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 2005
13 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 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education · State v. Spreigl · State v. Boyce · State v. Norgaard · State v. Keaton
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““All the time needed for premeditation or deliberation is that required to form the intent to kill. Thus, the following instruction was sustained in State v. Pro-low [ 98 Minn. 459, 461 , 108 N.W. 873, 874 (1906) ]: “The ‘premeditation may be formed at any time, moment or instant before the killing. Premeditation means thought of beforehand for any length of time, no matter how short. There need be no appreciable space of time between the intention of killing and the act of killing. They may be as instantaneous as the successive thoughts of the mind.’ “In State v. Hyleck [ 286 Minn. 126, 140 , 175 N.W.2d 163, 172 , certiorari denied, 399 U.S. 932 , 90 S.Ct. 2267 , 26 L.Ed. 2d 803 (1970) ] the court said: ‘Premeditation is not a coefficient of time and can never be presumed from a given state of facts.’ “In State v. Keaton [ 258 Minn. 359, 363 , 104 N.W.2d 650, 654 , 86 A.L.R. 649 , 653 (1960) ], the Court related: ‘Premeditated design denotes pre-existing reflection and deliberation encompassing more than the mere intent to kill.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * If the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged, a reviewing court will not disturb its verdict.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McCullum“We did not intend by our decision in State v. Spreigl * * * to require a ‘Spreigl notice’ as a condition to the admissibility of evidence bearing directly on the history of the relationship existing between one accused of murder and the victim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Black
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.