Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 320 NW2D 149 - Grooms v. State

Grooms v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
January 2024
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2024 · most notably Evitts v. Lucey (1985), State v. Thomas (2011)

2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

23019821990200020102020decided

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 Gideon v. Wainwright · McMann v. Richardson · State v. Johnson · Dillane v. United States · State v. McBride

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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We cannot envision an advantage which could have been gained by withholding a request for th[ese] instruction[s.]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “By not requesting that the jury be instructed to consider with caution the testimony of an accomplice, appellant’s counsel omitted a defense which might have negated [the witness’s] damning testimony.... [This] instruction ], if [it] had been requested and given, might have mitigated the effect of [the witness’s] testimony, hence reducing the chances of appellant’s conviction. No advantage could have been envisioned by appellant’s counsel in withholding [a] request! ] for [this] instruction.”
    1 later decision 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.