Gerbert v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252 · 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (§ 101 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Huddleston v. United States · United States v. Goodwin · United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. · Vega v. State
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is unlikely that the jury would be more inflamed in any appreciable measure by the relatively minor other acts evidence than the jury already was by the heinous sexual offenses against children with which he was actually charged. The impact of the other acts evidence was thus relatively minimal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the State failed to show that the defendant, who had images of child pornography located in his computer's cache, took some affirmative action to save or download those images to his computer or had knowledge that his computer automatically saved those files.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the State must prove a defendant's knowledge as to every element of the crime defined in [ OCGA § 16-12-100 ] (b)(8).”
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.