State v. Dilger’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently March 2015
21 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3731
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Barker v. Wingo · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Tibbs v. Florida · Patterson v. New York
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Our duty is to sustain a criminal conviction based upon a jury verdict if, upon reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, we determine that there is substantial evidence to support it. * * * * * * “A verdict based upon circumstantial evidence, however, carries the same presumption of correctness as other verdicts and will not be disturbed unless wholly unwarranted.... A conviction may be justified on circumstantial evidence alone if it is of such probative force as to enable the trier of fact to conclude that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.... Our role as an appellate court is to merely review the record to determine if there is competent evidence that allows the jury to draw an inference reasonably tending to prove guilt, and fairly warranting a conviction. ... Upon appeal to this Court, it is the defendant’s burden to show that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, reveals no reasonable inference of guilt_” [Emphasis in original; Citations omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Frey““The trial court is not required to give instructions in the specific language requested by the defendant. State v. Skjonsby, [ 319 N.W.2d 764 (N.D.1982)], supra. If the instructions given correctly advise the jury, there is no error, even though the requested instruction which was refused was a correct statement of the law. Armstrong v. Miller, 189 N.W.2d 688 (N.D.1971).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mayer““a. The forbidden conduct; b. The attendant circumstances specified in the definition and grading of the offense; c. The required culpability; d. Any required result; and e. The nonexistence of a defense as to which there is evidence in the case sufficient to give rise to a reasonable doubt on the issue.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sorenson
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.