State v. Shult’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 2005
11 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 Rhodes v. Chapman · Skinner v. State of Oklahoma Williamson · Smith v. Goguen · State v. Sahlie · State v. Winckler
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No hard and fast rules exist which state with certainty when prosecutorial misconduct reaches a level of prejudicial error which demands reversal of the conviction and a new trial; each case must be decided on its own facts. (citations omitted). Furthermore, we will not disturb the trial court's ruling on a motion for a new trial based on misconduct of counsel unless we are convinced there has been a clear abuse of discretion. (citations omitted). State v. Shult, 380 N.W.2d 352, 355 (S.D. 1986) (quoting State v. Kidd, 286 N.W.2d 120, 121-122 (S.D.1979)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wall“One who attacks a statute, alleging unconstitutionality, must prove its invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt; if any reasonable basis may be conceived which supports the statute, it will be upheld, and the challenger must negate all possible bases. Board of Ed. of Com. Sch. D. v. Board of Ed. of Hardin Co., 260 Iowa 217 , 149 N.W.2d 187 (1967). All presumptions are indulged in favor of constitutionality. Berens v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific R. Co., 80 S.D. 168 , 120 N.W.2d 565 (1963).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Barber“For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted but only if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to a party or the accused and the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Loop
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.