State v. Upton’s Empirical Analysis

1955

Citation profile

cited by 82 later decisions

states following

March 2005

most recently cited

82 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently March 2005 · most notably State v. Bell (1977), State v. Ortega (1966)

82 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. Roy · State v. White · State v. Beal · In re Smith · State v. Edwards

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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“' “Section 41-13-3, NMSA 1953, as construed in Territory v. Kennedy, cited supra, [ 15 N.M. 556 , 110 P. 854 ], and State v. Folk, cited supra [ 56 N.M. 583 , 247 P.2d 165 ], outlines the rights of defendants claiming insanity at the time of trial: 1.) No particular method of bringing the question of defendant’s present sanity to the attention of the trial court is required. 2.) Once the issue has been raised the trial court is under a duty to inquire into the matter. 3.-) The trial court must rule as to whether a reasonable doubt exists as to the sanity of the accused. 4.) If the trial court rules affirmatively the. issue must be submitted to the jury for determination.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Ortega · Hoffman v. State
““ * * * Photographs which are calculated to arouse the prejudices and passions of the jury and which are not , reasonably relevant to the issues of the case ought to be excluded.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Sedillo · State v. Valenzuela
““ ‘Has the defendant capacity, to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to comprehend . his own condition in reference -to. s.uch proceedings, and to make a rational defense ?’ ” .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Chapman · State v. Armstrong

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.