State v. Shaw’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably State v. Bogle (1989), State v. Ligon (1992)
48 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 Strickland v. Washington · Watkins v. Sowders · State v. Accor · State v. King · State v. Howard
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is the duty of the trial court to instruct the jury on all substantial features of a case raised by the evidence.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]n error in jury instructions is prejudicial and requires a new trial only if 'there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Possession of a vehicle may be either actual or constructive. A person has actual possession of a vehicle if the person is aware of its presence, is in the car, such as driving , and has both the power and intent to control its disposition or use. A person has constructive possession of a vehicle if the person is aware of its presence and has both the power and intent to control its disposition or use. A person's awareness of the presence of the vehicle and the person's power and intent to control its disposition or use may be shown by direct evidence or may be inferred from the circumstances. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that a white Lexus SUV vehicle was found in close physical proximity to the defendant, that would be a circumstance from which, together with other circumstances, you may infer that the defendant was aware of the presence of the vehicle and had the power and intent to control its disposition or use. However, the defendant's physical proximity, if any, to the vehicle does not by itself permit an inference that the defendant was aware of its presence or had the power or intent to control its disposition or use. Such an inference may be drawn only from this and other circumstances which you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.”
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.