Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 631 S.W.2d 637 - State v. Daugherty

State v. Daugherty’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
2
states following
October 2016
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably 445 So. 2d 798 - Williams v. State (1984), State v. Murray (1988)

11 federal appellate · 43 state decisions

3101982199020002010decided

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. Johnson · State v. Jackson · State v. Olinghouse · State v. Mitchell · State v. Wilkerson

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

  1. ““The basic principle applicable to the submission of instructions is that they should not be given if there is no evidence to support them. Instructions must be supported by substantial evidence and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Instructions which are at variance with the charge or which are broader in scope than the evidence are improper unless it is shown that an accused is not prejudiced thereby.” State v. Daugherty, 631 S.W.2d 637, 639-40 (Mo.1982) (internal citations omitted) (ioverruled on other grounds by State v. Baker, 636 S.W.2d 902, 904 (Mo.banc 1982)).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Under his final point (5), appellant contends that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury on first degree murder because the statutory elements of capital murder did not include all the legal elements of murder in the first degree, and murder in the first degree is not specifically a lesser included offense of capital murder. The evidence upon the record was sufficient to support the submission of murder in the first degree. As to appellant’s contention that murder in the first degree is not a lesser included offense of capital murder, this Court has held that failure to instruct on murder in the first degree where the evidence supports the submission of murder in the first degree is reversible error. State v. Gardner, 618 S.W.2d 40 (Mo.1981). See also State v. Wilkerson, 616 S.W.2d 829 (Mo. banc 1981). The trial court’s instruction on murder in the first degree in the instant case was not error. Point (5) is found to be without merit and is ruled against appellant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.