State v. Waff’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably State v. Hoadley (2002), State v. Harris (1993)
30 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 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Massachusetts v. Podgurski Et Al. · Barden v. Northern Pacific Railroad · Chisley v. State · State v. Grier
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) (a) a killing (b) without design to effect death (c) while engaged in the commission of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. (or) (2) (a) a killing (b) without design to effect death (c) in the heat of passion (d) in a cruel and unusual manner (or) (3) (a) a killing (b) without design to effect death (c) by means of a dangerous weapon (or) (4) (a) a killing (b) unnecessarily (c) (i) while resisting an attempt by person killed to commit a crime (or) (ii) after such attempt shall have failed”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Black · State v. Gregg“"Where a request has been made to charge the jury on a lesser-included offense, the duty of the trial judge is determined by the evidence. If evidence has been presented which would support a conviction of a lesser charge, refusal to give the requested instruction would be reversible error.... There must be sufficient evidence, however, when read in the light most favorable to the defendant, which would justify a jury in concluding that the greater offense was not committed and that a lesser offense was, in fact, committed."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Woods · State v. Bonrud“[Fjirst, the elements of the included offense must be fewer in number than the elements of the greater charged offense. Second, the penalty for the included offense must be less than the greater charged offense in terms of the maximum punishment attached to each offense. Third, ... the two offenses must contain common elements so that the lesser included offense must be such that the greater offense cannot be committed without also committing the lesser.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Black · State v. Bonrud
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.