State v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently February 1987 · most notably State v. Davis (1983), State v. Armbruster (1982)
32 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 Escobedo v. Illinois · Jackson v. Denno · Spano v. People of the State of New York · Betts v. Brady · Crooker v. State of California
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We first consider the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction for first degree murder. The basic statutory requirements are willfulness, deliberation and premeditation. * * * The distinction between first and second degree murder lies in the existence or nonexistence of deliberation. * * * The willfulness, deliberation and premeditation required for a conviction of first degree murder may all be inferred from and established by the circumstances attending a homicide.” Hi * * * * * “Under the authorities it appears that a finding of deliberation depends not so much upon the time element as it does upon an inference, reasonably drawn from the evidence, that the defendant performed the act in a cool and deliberate state of mind.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Clark“That Instruction, No. 8, told the jury to consider any such statement or statements “in the light of the circumstances under which they were made” and to determine whether or not they were voluntarily made or were “procured by coercion or threats or through fear . . .” We consider that it was wholly unnecessary, and perhaps it would have been improper, for the Court to single out and include specifically that one element, thus giving it an undue emphasis.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Burley
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.