Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 460 N.E.2d 936 - Bean v. State

Bean v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
states following
October 2005
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently October 2005 · most notably Richardson v. State (1999), Whittle v. State (1989)

27 state decisions

170198419902000decided

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 Cuyler v. Sullivan · Irvin v. Dowd · Rideout v. United States · Bonanno v. United States · Stinson v. State

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. “[I]t is not necessary that the State prove the defendant personally committed every act constituting the perpetration of an offense”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"If this Court were to permit individual jurors to make affidavits or give testimony disclosing the manner of deliberation in the jury room and their version of the reasons for rendering a particular verdict, there would be no reasonable end to litigation. Jurors would be harassed by both sides of litigation and find themselves in a contest of affidavits and counter-affidavits and arguments and re-arguments as to why and how a certain verdict was reached. Such an unsettled state of affairs would be a disservice to the parties litigant and an unconscionable burden upon citizens who serve on juries."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “ISSUE II "Upon a review for sufficient evidence, this Court will look only to the evidence most favorable to the State and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. If the existence of each element of the crime charged may be found therefrom, beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict will not be disturbed. In such a review, we will not weigh conflicting evidence nor will we judge the credibility of the witnesses."”
    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.