State v. Willis’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably State v. Burke (1987), State v. Moeller (1996)
2 district · 33 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 Houltin v. United States · Rodriguez v. New York · 110 So. 2d 654 - Williams v. State · State v. Esposito · 53 Ill. App. 3d 312 - People v. Osborn
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... In Houghton , this Court held that intent was not an element of rape in South Dakota, and therefore, the evidence of other alleged rapes was inadmissible to prove intent. ... When appellant claims innocence, such as he does here, by a mitigating factor, namely, consent, he thus begets the establishment of intent as a material issue in the crime of rape. Therefore, we hold that an admission of ‘other acts evidence’ to prove intent is not contingent on it being a specific element of the crime charged, but is dependent on the establishment of intent as a material issue. Perforce, and deeming that Houghton has been so seriously eroded in the past, we lay to rest its evidentiary holding.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. White · State v. Rufener“The allegation in Count I of the use of force, or coercion or threats of immediate and great bodily harm against the victim requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged victim did not freely and voluntarily consent to the act of sexual penetration. Lack of consent need not be established by the alleged victim’s physical resistance. Lack of consent can be established by showing the alleged victim submitted out of fear of violence or injury to herself (Emphasis added.) 8”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jones“The appellant’s first proposed instruction that ‘lack of consent must be established by resistance’ is simply no longer correct law. That is not to say that consent cannot be a defense where there is evidence offered and received that the victim did indeed consent, but that would also have to utterly negate any element of force, coercion or threat.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jones
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.