State v. Hart’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 2024
1 federal appellate · 15 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 Schad v. Arizona · Harris v. McRae · In re Vendo Co. · United States v. Gipson · 91 Wis. 2d 134 - Holland 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The [district] court did not give separate jury instructions for each count. The elements were listed and where the clauses differed, the [district] court gave the element in the disjunctive. Only one jury verdict form was submitted to the jury for the criminal sexual conduct charge. In essence, the jury was instructed that it could find [the] appellant guilty of first degree criminal sexual conduct if it found that [the victim] either received a personal injury or had fear of harm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lagred“the 'either/or' instruction allowing the jury to consider personal injury or submission due to a threat of bodily harm, but not requiring the jury to specify which, [did not mandate] a second trial,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lagred“A person who engages in sexual penetration with another person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree if any of the following circumstances exists.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lagred
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.