Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 540 SW2D 641 - Edwards v. State

Edwards v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

70
cited by 70 later decisions
4
states following
July 2014
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 67 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably Coe v. Bell (1998), State v. Middlebrooks (1992)

2 federal appellate · 67 state decisions

38019761980199020002010decided

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 McBee v. State · Smith v. State · Mullendore v. State · Bostick v. State · Patterson Transfer Co. v. Lewis

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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Th[e] burden can be met by the state through the introduction of expert testimony on the issue [of insanity], or through lay testimony where a proper foundation for the expressing of an opinion is laid, or through the showing of acts or statements of the petitioner, at or very near the time of the commission of the crime which are consistent with sanity and inconsistent with insanity.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[I]t is settled beyond question that the weight and value of expert testimony is for the jury and must be received with caution. This applies to the expert opinions of medical men. Where there is any conflict between expert testimony and the testimony as to the facts, the jury is not bound to accept expert testimony in preference to other testimony, and must determine the weight and credibility of each in the light of all the facts shown in [the] case. Expert medical opinion regarding the functioning of the human body must always be more or less speculative.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[[i]t] would effectively preempt our jury trial system on sanity issues and replace it with a system of trial by psychiatrists' opinions. We are unwilling, even if we had the power, to saddle society with so basic a change in our system of criminal jurisprudence.”
    1 later decision 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.