Gambill v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Timberlake v. State (1997), Wooley v. State (1999)
49 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 Nebraska v. Wyoming · Payless Wholesale Distributor, Inc. v. Albert Culver (P.R.) Inc. · Johnson v. St. Vincent Hospital, Inc. · Collins v. Day · Lockard v. Department of the Army
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person is not responsible for having engaged in prohibited conduct if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the offense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. McCarty v. State · Wood v. State“A determination of insanity is a question for the trier of fact. The jury is free to disregard the testimony of experts and rely upon that of lay witnesses. A jury is not obligated to believe expert testi mony on the issue of insanity and may consider lay opinion testimony on the issue of sanity. Accordingly, the standard of review is a deferential one. A convicted defendant who claims that his insanity defense would have prevailed at trial is in the position of one appealing from a negative judgment, and such a judgment will be reversed only when the evidence is without conflict and leads to but one conclusion which the trier of fact did not reach.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wood v. State“One who has interposed such a defense and failed therein at the trial level has a monumental burden if he seeks to upset the finding of the fact trier on appeal, for he is appealing from a negative finding, and the issue is not whether or not the finding was sustained by the evidence but whether it was contrary to all the evidence and hence contrary to law. It is only where the evidence is without conflict and leads to but one conclusion and the trier of fact has reached an opposite conclusion, that the decision predicated upon such finding will be disturbed as being contrary to law. [Citation omitted.]””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hurst 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.