Morales v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
1 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2018
1 district · 17 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 United States v. Spell · United States v. Barney · Skinner v. State · Monroe v. State · Williams 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any person who has been 2 times convicted of a felony or an attempt to commit a felony hereinafter specifically named, under the laws of this State, and/or any other state, United States or any territory of the United States, and who shall thereafter be convicted of a subsequent felony hereinafter specifically named, or an attempt to commit such specific felony, is declared to be an habitual criminal, and the court in which such third or subsequent conviction is had, in imposing sentence, shall impose a life sentence upon the person so convicted unless the subsequent felony conviction requires or allows and results in the imposition of capital punishment. 4”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sammons v. State“At trial, Detective Rodriguez testified both as an eye witness and as a drag expert. In his capacity as an expert, Detective Rodriguez opined that the drugs that were found in Morales' apartment were consistent with the conclusion that Morales possessed the drags with the intent to sell them.”). 25 . Cline v. State, 720 A.2d 891, 892 (Del.1998) (footnote omitted). 26 . 720 A.2d 891 (Del.1998). 27 . Id. at 892-93 (footnotes omitted). 28 . See White v. State, No. 271, 2003, 2003 WL 23019194 , at * , 2003 Del. Lexis 640, at -9 (Del. Dec. 24, 2003) (ORDER) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hardin v. State“[although the defense demonstrated that the defendant was a heroin addict and elicited testimony that Morales might have possessed the small bags of heroin found inside his apartment for personal consumption” because ”[t]he State need not produce evidence that is consistent solely with the reasonable hypothesis of guilt.” Because the State”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ashley 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.