State v. Moorman’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Nathan DUNLAP, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant. (2007), Conley v. State (2014)
5 federal appellate · 82 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Strickland v. Washington · State v. Braswell · Flick v. United States · People v. Corona · Javor 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he common law implied in law the elements of force and lack of consent so as to make the crime of rape complete upon the mere showing of sexual intercourse with a person who is asleep, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated and therefore could not resist or give consent. Our rape statutes essentially codify the common law of rape. In the case of a sleeping, or similarly incapacitated victim, it makes no difference whether the indictment alleges that the vaginal intercourse was by force and against the victim’s will or whether it alleges merely the vaginal intercourse with an incapacitated victim.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The question becomes whether a reasonable probability exists that, absent counsel's deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.”
2 later decisions 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.