Bowling v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Bunting v. State (1988), Robinson v. State (1986)
3 federal appellate · 60 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 Ashe v. Swenson · Green v. United States · Yates v. United States · Houltin v. United States · Delli Paoli v. United States
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[F]or the State to be precluded in a criminal trial from relitigating an issue resolved against it at a prior proceed ing, the following requirements ordinarily must be met. First, the earlier proceeding must have ended with a final judgment or ‘final determination’ of the issue____ Second, the defendant must have been a party to both proceedings____ Third, the resolution of the issue at the earlier proceeding cannot have been unnecessary or mere dicta; instead it must have been an ingredient or a basis of the decision____ [I]t must have been ‘an issue of ultimate fact.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“the doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents the State from criminally trying the defendant on charges of sexual assault and related offenses when, in a prior civil proceeding based upon the same alleged incidents, the court dismissed the action on the ground that the State had failed to prove that the defendant had committed the acts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A child in need of assistance is a child who requires the assistance of a juvenile court'because (1) He ... is not receiving ordinary and proper care and attention, and (2) His parents, guardian, or custodian are unable or unwilling to give proper care and attention to the child and his problems____”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Arlene G.
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.