Willoughby v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably People v. Jones (1998), Sweeney v. State (1998)
28 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 Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe · California v. Curry · State v. Edwards · Jordan v. Arizona · Skibs A/S Jolund v. American Smelting & Refining Co.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'1) the occurrence of the specific kind of injury and 2) someone's criminal act as the cause of the injury'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“Proof of the corpus delicti means proof that the specific crime charged has actually been committed by someone. Thus, admission of a confession requires some independent evidence of commission of the crime charged. The independent evidence need not prove that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt, but merely provide an inference that the crime charged was committed. This inference may be created by circumstantial evidence. .... The State is not required to prove the corpus delicti by independent evidence prior to the admission of a confession, as long as the totality of independent evidence presented at trial establishes the corpus delicti.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“oJnee the defendant opened the door to the proscribed evidence he waived any objection to the admission of the polygraph results. The trial court did not err in permitting the State to present the polygraph results in rebuttal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Shriner 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.