Weber v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Robertson v. State (1991), Younger v. State (1990)
62 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 Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · Pelaes v. United States · Johnson v. United States · Gullett v. States · Robert C. Gilliard, Jr. v. Mississippi
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... restricting] another person’s movements intentionally in such a manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty by moving him from 1 place to another, or by confining him either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has been moved, without consent. A person is moved or confined “without consent” when the movement or confinement is accomplished by physical force, intimidation or deception .... 2”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kornegay v. State · Wright v. State“C. Disqualification. (1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (a) He has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; (b) He served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it; (c) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (d) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: (i)Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party; (ii)Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding or the lawyer is affiliated with a law firm with which a lawyer relative of the judge is affiliated; (iii)Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (iv)Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a materia] witness in the proceedings;”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Los v. Los“should not be submitted to the jury unless the trial judge concludes that there are facts in the record which would support independent convictions on the kidnapping charge and on the underlying charge. The trial judge must determine, as a matter of law, if the evidence of restraint proves that there was “much more ” (substantial) interference with the victims [sic] liberty than is ordinarily incident to the underlying crime. 6”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wright 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.