Rivera v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2007 · most notably Rivera v. Delaware (1976), 22 Cal. 3d 333 - People v. Drew (1978)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 12 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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Leland v. Oregon · Davis v. United States · Fuentes 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) In any prosecution for an offense, it is an affirmative defense that, at the time of the conduct charged, as a result of mental illness or mental defect, the accused lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or lacked sufficient willpower to choose whether he would do the act or refrain from doing it. “(b) If the defendant prevails in establishing the affirmative defense provided in subsection (a) of this section, the trier of facts shall return a verdict of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) When a defense declared by this Criminal Code or by another statute to be an affirmative defense is raised at trial, the defendant has the burden of establishing it by a preponderance of the evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““I agree with the Court that In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 [ 25 L.Ed. 2d 368 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 ] (1970), does require that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element which constitutes the crime charged against a defendant. I see no inconsistency between that holding and the holding of Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 [ 96 L.Ed. 1302 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 ] (1952). In the latter case this Court held that there was no constitutional requirement that the State shoulder the burden of proving the sanity of the defendant.” 421 U.S. at 705 , 44 L.Ed. 2d at 523 , 95 S.Ct. at 1893 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Harris
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.