Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 271 Ga. App. 804 - Fitzpatrick v. State

271 Ga. App. 804 - Fitzpatrick v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
May 2008
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 268 Ga. App. 430 - Helton v. State · Patterson 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The standard of review for the denial of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal is the same as that for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. A motion for a directed verdict in a criminal case should only be granted when there is no conflict in the evidence and the evidence demands a verdict of acquittal as a matter of law. Moreover, on appeal the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, [Matthiessen] no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the appellate court determines the sufficiency, not the weight of the evidence, and does not judge the credibility of the witnesses. 1”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““This argument misperceives the law. Under OCGA § 24-4-6, only when the evidence is entirely circumstantial must the evidence exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused. Here, the evidence consisted of . . . direct evidence, in particular, the direct testimony of an eyewitness to the [robbery].””
    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.