Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 286 NW2D 702 - State v. Brouillette

State v. Brouillette’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

108
cited by 108 later decisions
7
states following
December 2011
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 104 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably 40 Cal. 3d 239 - Serna v. Superior Court (1985), State v. Bias (1988)

4 federal appellate · 104 state decisions

87019791980199020002010decided

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 Barker v. Wingo · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite · United States v. Marion

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

  1. “* * ⅜ [A] cautionary instruction would presumably have been given which directs the jury to consider the prior conviction only as it relates to defendant’s credibility. See CRIM JIG 3.12. Such an instruction adequately protects defendant against the possibility that the jury would convict him on the basis of his character rather than his guilt.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “but only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year * * * and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect, or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Generally review of the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case is limited to ascertaining whether, under the evidence contained in the record, the jury could reasonably find defendant guilty of the offense charged. In making this determination [appellate courts] view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contradicting testimony.”
    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.