Calhoon v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently November 1992 · most notably People in Interest of LVA (1976), In re R. M. (1977)
34 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 Corbin v. United States · JTP v. State · Stidham 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla. It must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of the fact to be established. We must consider the case as a whole and not piecemeal. The lines of proof must be considered together, not separately. Even if each line of proof taken by itself is of insufficient probative force, the conclusion does not necessarily follow that the proof taken as a whole is insufficient. The lines of proof interweave and support each other.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. W.C.P. v. State · Terrell v. State“1. The seriousness of the alleged offense to the community, and whether the alleged offense was committed in an agressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner; 2. Whether the offense was against person or property, greater weight being given to offenses against persons especially if personal injury resulted; 3. The sophistication and maturity of the juvenile and his capability of distinguishing right from wrong as determined by consideration of his psychological evaluation, home, environmental situation, emotional attitude and pattern of living; 4. The record and previous history of the juvenile, including previous contacts with community agencies, law enforcement agencies, schools, juvenile courts and other jurisdictions, prior periods of probation or prior commitments to juvenile institutions; 5. The prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile if he is found to have committed the alleged offense, by the use of procedures and facilities currently available to the juvenile court; and 6. Whether the offense occurred while the juvenile was escaping or in an escape status from an institution for delinquent children.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. W.C.P. v. State · Terrell v. State“The decision that a child is unfit for rehabilitation within the juvenile system is one within the discretion of the juvenile judge. That discretion, however, must be exercised within the bounds of due process which requires . . . substantial evidence against the child’s claim to the benefits of juvenile treatment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Matter of J.W.N. · Matter of JWN
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.