Graham v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently June 2012
23 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 Todd v. State · Thomas v. State · Dillon v. State · Lugo-Lugo v. State · Coulter 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]ith respect to the circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Boyd v. State · Crume v. State““Whenever recklessness or criminal negligence enters into or is a part or element of any offense, or it is charged that the accused acted recklessly or with criminal negligence in the commission of an offense, the complaint, information, or indictment in order to be sufficient in any such case must allege, with reasonable certainty, the act or acts relied upon to constitute recklessness or criminal negligence, and in no event shall it be sufficient to allege merely that the accused, in committing the offense, acted recklessly or with criminal negligence.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Crume v. State · State v. McCoy“"Therefore, the 'required culpability’ of the statute goes — consonant with all homicides— to the ‘required result:’ death of an individual. Conceptualized in this fashion, the burden of proof on the State was to show that appellants ought to have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death of an individual would occur as a result of their conduct; that the failure to perceive the risk of a resulting death was a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all circumstances as viewed from appellants’ standpoint. In short, it is the ‘failure to perceive' the risk of a resulting death which must rise to the level of a 'gross deviation’ from an ordinary standard of care." [Emphasis original]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Alvarado 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.