State v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
117 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably State v. Shurn (1993), State v. Griffin (1988)
117 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 Pointer v. Texas · Seales v. State · State v. Cuckovich · State v. Sallee · State v. Blackwell
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he rule does not cover all trial error, should be exercised sparingly, cannot be used as a vehicle for review of every alleged trial error ... and is limited in its application to cases where there is a manifestation and showing that injustice or miscarriage of justice results if the rule is not invoked.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“if it throws any relevant light upon a material matter at issue,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bolder · State v. Bonuchi““The right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for a fair trial. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); Mo.Const. art. I § 18(a) cl. 3. An exception exists where a witness is unavailable and has given testimony at previous judicial proceedings against the same defendant which was subject to cross-examination by the defendant. A witness is not unavailable unless the prosecutor has made a good-faith effort to obtain his presence at trial; State v. Brookins, 478 S.W.2d 372 (Mo.1972); and the State must show the exercise of reasonable diligence to secure attendance of the witness at trial. State v. Purl, 183 S.W.2d 903 (Mo.1944). What constitutes due diligence turns on the facts of the particular case. State v. Lloyd, 337 Mo. 990 , 87 S.W.2d 418 (1935).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Johnson
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.