State v. Dame’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently January 2014 · most notably State v. Bettencourt (1999), State v. Lynch (2004)
56 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 State v. Burke · State v. Caruolo · State v. Henshaw · State v. Barnes · State v. DaRocha
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““the trial justice must consider all material evidence in light of the charge to the jury. Using independent judgment, the trial justice must pass upon the weight and credibility of the evidence and accept or reject conflicting testimony. At that point all proper and appropriate inferences may be drawn from the evidence adduced at trial. The trial justice must then determine whether the evidence presented a controversy upon which reasonable minds could differ or whether the evidence failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A new trial may be subsequently granted if the trial justice has reached a different conclusion from that of the jury and if it is specifically found that the verdict is against the fair preponderance of the evidence and fails to do substantial justice. The new-trial motion must be denied, however, if the trial justice finds that the evidence is balanced or reasonable minds could differ.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Marrápese, 588 A.2d 587 , 544 (R.I.1990) (quoting State v. Dame, 560 A.2d 330, 333 (R.I.1989)).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“need not refer to all the evidence supporting the decision but need only cite evidence sufficient to allow [the reviewing] court to discern whether the justice has applied the appropriate standards.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]f this pyramiding of inferences becomes speculative * * * proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt will not be found. * * * State v. Alexander, 471 A.2d 216, 218 (R.I.1984); In re Derek, 448 A.2d 765, 768 (R.I.1982). We have recognized that pyramiding of inferences becomes speculative when the initial inference rests upon an ambiguous fact that may support other inferences which are clearly inconsistent with guilt. [ Caroulo ], 524 A.2d at 582 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kaba
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.