Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 434 NW2D 55 - State v. Blalack

State v. Blalack’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
states following
May 2012
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably State v. Anderson (2000), State v. Oster (1993)

1 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

2101988199020002010decided

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 Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · State v. Brouillette · People v. Hackett · State v. Phipps · State v. Michalek

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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[The] standard of review on a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is whether the state set forth sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably find the defendant guilty of the crime charged. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict. A guilty verdict will not be set aside if the state’s evidence and all favorable inferences that can be drawn therefrom support a rational theory of guilt.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “`Prejudicial error' for purposes of determining whether error constitutes grounds for mistrial is error `which in all probability must have produced some effect upon the jury's verdict and is harmful to the substantial rights of the party assigning it.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In prosecutions for rape, evidence of specific instances of a victim's prior sexual conduct shall not be admitted nor reference made thereto before the jury or jury panel, except as provided in this section. Whenever a party proposes to offer evidence concerning a victim's prior sexual conduct, the court shall first conduct a hearing in the absence of the jury and the public to consider and rule upon the relevancy and materiality of the evidence.”
    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.