Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 277 Ga. App. 715 - Corbett v. State

277 Ga. App. 715 - Corbett v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Head v. Hill · 231 Ga. App. 528 - Paul v. State · 233 Ga. App. 217 - Williams v. State · 253 Ga. App. 851 - Cupe 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “On appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. We do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility but only determine whether the evidence is sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). The standard for reviewing both a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of a motion for a directed verdict is that the verdict must be upheld if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “as long as the defendant’s negligence proximately caused the injury of another, the crime has been committed, even if there are other factors which also are proximate causes of the injury. Unlike the civil context, in the criminal context it simply is not relevant that the victim was negligent unless the defendant’s conduct did not substantially contribute to the cause of the injury. (Footnotes omitted; emphasis supplied.) Baysinger v. State, 257 Ga. App. 273 -274 (1) ( 570 SE2d 593 ) (2002).”
    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.