Speigner v. Jago’s Empirical Analysis
603 F.2d 1208 · 1979
Citation profile
13 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2007 · most notably Jackson v. Virginia (1979), Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. (1980)
13 federal appellate ·
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 Jackson v. Virginia · Glasser v. United States · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Townsend v. Sain · Brown v. Allen
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant ... guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“circumstantial evidence alone is relied upon to prove an element essential to a finding of guilt, it must be consistent only with the theory of guilt and irreconcilable with any reasonable theory of innocence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he victim’s automobile was stopped at 5:02 a.m., a few hours after his murder, a short distance from the place where his body was discovered. At that time, blood stains of the victim’s type were in the car; a bloody but unidentified fingerprint was on the door; a sawed-off shotgun was under the passenger’s seat; a vent window was shattered and glass was strewn on the floor. From this evidence, a jury could reasonably infer that the victim’s car might have been at the scene of his murder. When we add to this inference the facts that petitioner was a passenger in the vehicle when it was stopped at 5:02 a.m., that he was seated directly over the shotgun, and that he later admitted knowing both the victim and the driver of the vehicle, we must conclude that the record in this case contains “some” evidence relevant to the elements of second degree murder.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Spalla v. Foltz
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.