Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 351 P.2d 674 - Murdock v. State

Murdock v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1960

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
3
states following
September 2019
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably Ostrowski v. State (1983), Smith v. State (1977)

34 state decisions

150196019701980199020002010decided

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 State v. Koch · Gardner v. State · State v. Faulkner · State v. Vinson · Hollywood 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ * * * The objection of incompetency, irrelevancy, and immateriality is not sufficiently specific to raise any question for decision; [citations]. The objector should lay his finger on the particular point intended to be raised so that the trial court will have notice and an opportunity to cure the alleged error. It follows that there was no error in the trial court’s overruling of defendant’s objection.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It is a general rule applicable in all criminal cases, including those in which a specific intent is an element of the crime, that the accused is presumed to intend the necessary or the natural and probable consequences of his unlawful voluntary acts.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “there must be a definite showing that defendant performed some act of taking, an asportation, or that he caused or procured [an accomplice] to perform such act; and that he must have done so with the intent to steal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.