Grayson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 2010
14 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
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Lord Electric Co. v. United States · Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States · Tamotsu Tanaka v. Creditors' Committee 1 · Kugler v. Helfant
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If, after the jury retires for deliberation: (1) there is a disagreement among the jurors as to any part of the testimony; or (2) the jury desires to be informed as to any point of law arising in the case; the jury may request the officer to conduct them into the court, where the information required shall be given in the presence of, or after notice to, the parties or the attorneys representing the parties.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kiner v. State · Pettrie v. State“In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims, we will not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. We will consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment, together with all reasonable and logical inferences to be drawn therefrom. The conviction will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the conviction of the trier of fact. To establish that the defendant is an habitual offender, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has been previously convicted of two separate and unrelated felonies. 1.C. § 35-50-2-8 (West's 2004). To be "unrelated," the commission of the see-ond felony must be subsequent to the sentencing for the first, and the sentencing for the second felony must have preceded the commission of the current felony for which the enhanced sentence is being sought. Failure to prove the proper sequencing requires that the habitual offender determination be vacated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Parks v. State“[ulaless the jury manifests disagreement about the testimony or seeks clarification on legal issues, the trial court is under no duty to respond to the jury's request.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dowdy 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.