State v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 2001
7 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 Chaffin v. Stynchcombe · State v. Morris · State v. Johnson · State v. Baumann
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. Under § 564.610, certain weapons mentioned therein, e. g. ‘firearm’ are dangerous or deadly. If the weapon is one mentioned in the statute as being dangerous and deadly, no further proof to show that it is deadly is required or necessary. Proof of dangerousness or deadliness must be shown only when the weapon used is not one mentioned in the statute. The State therefore need not prove that a shotgun is a dangerous or deadly weapon since a firearm is mentioned in § 564.610. State v. Baumann, 311 Mo. 443 , 278 S.W. 974 (1925); State v. Morris, 263 Mo. 339 , 172 S.W. 603 (1915). . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Larkin
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.