Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 452 S.W.2d 169 - State v. Raspberry

State v. Raspberry’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

141
cited by 141 later decisions
4
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

139 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 141 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably State v. Antwine (1987), State v. Tokar (1996)

139 state decisions

59019701980199020002010decided

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 State v. Tiedt · State v. Jones · State v. Smith · State v. Laster · State v. Camper

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

  1. ““While the prosecutor in this case in some degree exceeded the bounds of legitimate argument, what we are called upon by defendant to hold is that the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial because of these statements of the prosecutor.... Every instance of a prosecutor exceeding the limits of legitimate argument is not a cause for declaring a mistrial. The declaration of a mistrial is, as stated, a drastic remedy and should be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances where the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way.... This determination rests largely within the discretion of the trial judge who observed the incident and can best gauge its prejudicial effect upon the jury.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It is well settled that the prosecutor may not personalize his argument to the jury. The jury must act objectively, without fear or prejudice. They must determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant from the evidence and it is improper for the prosecutor to taint their judgment with suggestions of personal danger to them or their families if the defendant is acquitted.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “for the sake of your children, ... for your wives, ... for your families, [and] for the sake of the people of the community”
    1 later decision 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.