Suff v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 1992 · most notably Freeman v. State (1983), Tarpley v. State (1978)
2 federal appellate · 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 Anders v. California · Pope v. Nebraska · Gainous v. State · Wood v. State · Creel 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . As to those situations in which one may be guilty as a principal when actually present, the very least that is required is, in addition to physical presence, encouragement by words or agreement to the commission of the offense. Such agreement must be prior to or contemporaneous with the criminal event.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Earnhart v. State · Harper v. State“.. . [t]o be guilty of a felony offense as a principal, a defendant must be actually present at the time of its commission or if not present, ... he must at the time the act is being done, be himself actively engaged in the furtherance of the common purpose and design at some other place.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Urtado v. State · Seals v. State“We cannot bring ourselves, in spite of the gravity of the offense and the revulsion with which it fills, to uphold a verdict supported only by innuendo bolstered by moral outrage.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hughes 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.