State v. Fast Horse’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2019
2 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 Wong Sun v. United States · Briley v. Bass · State v. O'CONNELL · Spears v. State · United States v. Kabat
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.
“[J]ury instructions are adequate when, considered as a whole, they give the full and correct statement of the law applicable to the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rhines · State v. Walton“`the jury might and probably would have returned a different verdict if [the] instruction had been given.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rhines · State v. Walton“Direct evidence means evidence that directly proves a fact, without an inference, and which in itself, if true establishes that fact. Circumstantial evidence means evidence that proves a fact from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn. It is not necessary that facts be proven by direct evidence. They may be proved also by circumstantial evidence or by a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. The law makes no distinction between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence as a means of proof. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other. Where the case of the state rests substantially or entirely on circumstantial evidence, you are not permitted to find the defendant guilty of the crime charged against him unless the proved circumstances are not only consistent with the guilt of the defendant, but cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion and each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant’s guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If all the facts and circumstances shown can be reasonably accounted for upon any theory consistent with the innocence of the defendant, the jury must acquit the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Webster
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.