State v. Goodall’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably State v. Crocker (1981), State v. Rand (1981)
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 37 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Barker v. Wingo · Britt v. North Carolina · United States of America Ex Rel. Kelly Wilson v. The Hon. Daniel McMann Warden, Clinton State Prison, Dannemora, N.Y.
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[“A person is an accomplice under this subsection to any crime the commission of which was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of his conduct.”]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“liability for a “primary crime” ... [here, robbery] is established by proof that the actor intended to promote or facilitate that crime. Under the second sentence, liability for any “secondary crime” ... [here, murder] that may have been committed by the principal is established upon a two-fold showing: (a) that the actor intended to promote the primary crime, and (b) that the commission of the secondary crime was a “foreseeable consequence” of the actor’s participation in the primary crime.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bowman · State v. Linscott“[t]he history of the statute demonstrates that the legislature indeed intended to impose liability upon accomplices for those crimes that were the reasonably foreseeable consequence of their criminal enterprise, notwithstanding an absence on their part of the same culpability required for conviction as a principal to the crime.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.