State v. Walton’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably State v. Isom (1992), State v. Rose (1991)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 26 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Chapman v. State of California · Batson v. Kentucky · Davis v. Alaska · Arizona v. Fulminante
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Under Oregon law, a verdict against a criminal defendant may be affirmed notwithstanding trial error if the error did not affect a `substantial right' of the defendant. OEC 103(1). This court has interpreted this to mean that the verdict may be affirmed if there is `little likelihood that the error affected the verdict.' State v. Hansen, 304 Or 169, 180-81 , 743 P2d 157 (1987); see also State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 220-22 , 709 P2d 225 (1985) [ cert. den. 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986) ]."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kitzman · State v. Busby“'It is not necessary that the corroborating evidence be direct and positive; it may be circumstantial. Nor is it necessary that there be independent corroborating evidence with respect to every material fact necessary to be established to sustain a conviction for the commission of a crime. Where there is any evidence apart from that of the accomplice tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime, the question of whether the accomplice's testimony is corroborated is one for the trier of fact.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Charles v. Maass · State v. Riley“Defendant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his objection and in denying his motion for a mistrial. Defendant argues that the prosecutor's questioning was improper and highly prejudicial to defendant, because the questions implied that defendant had been previously tried on the same charge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Isom
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.