Victor v. Nebraska’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
564 federal appellate · 76 district · 1,173 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,357 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2025 · most notably United States v. Gaudin (1995), Jones v. United States (1999)
564 federal appellate · 76 district · 1,173 state decisions — followed in 48 states
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 Jackson v. Virginia · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Estelle v. McGuire · Holland v. United States · Sullivan v. Louisiana
Cited together with In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Cage v. Louisiana · Estelle v. McGuire · Sullivan v. Louisiana · Strickland v. Washington
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 2,357 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instructions to allow conviction based on proof insufficient to meet the Winship standard.”
248 later decisions quote this exact passage“A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, for most things that relate to human affairs are open to some possible or imaginary doubt. A reasonable doubt is not a vain, imaginary or fanciful doubt, but it is a sane, rational doubt arising out of the evidence or lack of evidence or from its deficiency. When it is said that the jury must be satisfied of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it is meant that they must be fully satisfied or entirely convinced or satisfied to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge. If, after considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, the minds of the jurors are left in such condition that they cannot say they have an abiding faith to a moral certainty in the defendant’s guilt, then they have a reasonable doubt; otherwise not. A reasonable doubt, as that term is employed in the administration of criminal law, is an honest substantial misgiving generated by the insufficiency of the proof. An insufficiency which fails to convince your judgment and confidence and satisfy your reasons as to the guilt of the defendant.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage“'whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instructions in a way' that violates the Constitution.”
11 later decisions 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.