State v. Appleby’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
103 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 14132 (§ 210304 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Crawford v. Washington · Edwards v. Arizona · Schmerber v. State of California
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“properly and fairly state[] the law as applied to the facts of the case and . . . not have reasonably misled the jury”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The pattern jury instructions for Kansas (PIK) have been developed by a knowledgeable committee to bring accuracy, clarity, and uniformity to jury instructions. They should be the starting point in the preparation of any set of jury instructions. If the particular facts in a given case require modification of the applicable pattern instruction or the addition of some instruction not included in PIK, the trial court should not hesitate to make such modification or addition. However, absent such need, PIK instructions and recommendations should be followed.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] database and [a] statistical program are accepted sources of information generally relied on by DNA experts.”); Vann v. State, 229 P.3d 197, 207 (Alaska Ct.App.2010) (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.