Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 646 P2D 795 - Marshall v. State

Marshall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
4
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 2017

9 state decisions

701982199020002010decided

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 Grabill v. State · Browder v. State · Blakely v. State · Madrid v. Norton · Neilson v. State

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

  1. ““The oft-repeated rule by which we test the sufficiency of evidence on appeal of a criminal matter is that we examine and accept as true the evidence of the prosecution, leaving out of consideration entirely the evidence of the defendant in conflict therewith, and we give to the evidence of the prosecution every favorable inference which may reasonably and fairly be drawn therefrom. Stated another way — it is not whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for us, but rather whether it is sufficient to form the basis for a reasonable inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to be drawn by the jury when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Evanson v. State, Wyo., 546 P.2d 412 (1976); Brown v. State, Wyo., 581 P.2d 189 (1978); Ni songer v. State, Wyo., 581 P.2d 1094 (1978).””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “« * * * ¶¾⅛ court may reverse where ‘[pjlain errors or defects affecting substantial rights’ are found to have occurred. Rule 49, W.R.Cr.P. However, before noticing the error, this court must find that (1) the record clearly shows the alleged error; (2) the error violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law in an obvious way; and (3) material' prejudice resulted. Browder v. State, Wyo., 639 P.2d 889 (1982).””
    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.