Tarnef v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably McClain v. State (1974), Anthony v. State (1974)
33 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 Klopfer v. State of North Carolina · United States v. Ewell · Dickey v. Florida · Beavers v. Haubert · State v. Chaney
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To express this rule in another way, the circumstantial evidence must be such as to exclude every reasonable theory consistent with the defendant’s innocence as to the particular crime charged. Also, if the evidence is suspectible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant’s guilt and the other to his innocence, it is your duty to adopt that interpretation which points to the defendant’s innocence, and reject the other which points to his guilt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jacobson v. State“We do not mean to suggest by this holding that a converse presumption will be employed for less substantial delays— i. e., that prejudice will be presumed not to exist. Rather, the extent to which a showing of prejudice will be required in such cases will depend on the facts of each case. Generally, the longer the period of delay, the more willing the court should be to find a denial of the right to speedy trial without a showing of actual prejudice to the accused.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nickerson v. State“It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, possess, have under his control, sell, prescribe, administer, dispense, give, barter, supply or distribute in any manner, or compound any narcotic drug except as authorized in this chapter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gunnerud v. State
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.