State v. Grey Owl’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2008 · most notably State v. Pellegrino (1998), State v. Rhines (1996)
4 federal appellate · 25 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 North Carolina v. Pearce · Williams v. People of State of New York · Green v. United States · United States v. Scott · Ball 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well settled that in determining the sufficiency of evidence on appeal, the question presented is whether or not there is evidence in the record which, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In making such a determination, this court will accept that evidence, and the most favorable inferences that can be fairly drawn therefrom, which will support the verdict.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ree · State v. Pellegrino“[A]s a general rule, it is not essential to a sexual offense conviction that the testimony of the victim be corroborated by other evidence.... This general rule, however, is not without an exception. A person may not be convicted of the crime of rape upon the uncorroborated testimony of the victim if it appears that such testimony is unreliable or improbable or that the witness has been fairly impeached.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lykken · State v. Sieler“The constitutional guaranty against double jeopardy does three things: (1) it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 , 78 S.Ct. 221 , 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957); (2) it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889); and (3) it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense, United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304 , 51 S.Ct. 113 , 75 L.Ed. 354 (1931).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Feiok
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.