State v. Morgan’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently March 2000 · most notably State v. Harris (1981), Sours v. State (1980)
80 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 Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Chambers v. Maroney · Benton v. Maryland · Brown v. Ohio
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case after the verdict *? of guilty, the Court accepts as true all evidence in the record tending to prove the defendant’s guilt, whether such evidence is circumstantial in nature, together with favorable inferences that can be reasonably drawn therefrom and disregards all contrary evidence and inferences. . When the state’s case rests upon circumstantial evidence, ‘the facts and circumstances must be consistent with each other and with the hypothesis of defendant’s guilt, and they must be inconsistent with his innocence and exclude every reasonable hypothesis of his innocence.’ . The application of this circumstantial evidence rule is realistically tempered, however, such that the circumstances need not be absolutely conclusive of guilt or demonstrate impossibility of innocence. ‘[T]he mere existence of other possible hypothesis is not enough to remove the case from the jury.’ [Citations omitted].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hunter · State v. Williams“... The right to search [an automobile] and [the] validity of the seizure are not dependent upon the right to arrest but depend upon the existence of reasonable cause on the part of the seizing officer to believe that the con tents of the automobile offend against the law. “State v. Hornbeck, 492 S.W.2d 802, 807 (Mo.1973). “The Court in Hornbeck stated the definition of probable cause to be ‘more than mere suspicion ... [existing] where the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the seizing officers, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed or that the contents of the automobile offend against the law.’ Id. at 805 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hampton v. Thurmand
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.