Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 70 OHIOST2D 182 - State v. Wilcox

State v. Wilcox’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

131
cited by 131 later decisions
10
states following
December 2023
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 109 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably State v. Taylor (1997), State v. Cooey (1989)

16 federal appellate · 109 state decisions — followed in 10 states

40019821990200020102020decided

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 Gregg v. Georgia · Furman v. Georgia · Lockett v. Ohio · Woodson v. North Carolina · Beck v. Alabama

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

  1. “'he lacked the mental capacity to form the specific mental state required for a particular crime or degree of crime.'”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he ameliorative argument loses much of its force, however, in jurisdictions that have abandoned or expanded upon the narrow M'Naghten standard.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"It takes no great expertise for jurors to determine whether an accused was `"so intoxicated as to be mentally unable to intend anything (unconscious),"' ... whereas the ability to assimilate and apply the finely differentiated psychiatric concepts associated with diminished capacity demands a sophistication (or as critics would maintain a sophistic bent) that jurors (and officers of the court) ordinarily have not developed. We are convinced as was the Bethea court, that these `significant evidentiary distinctions' preclude treating diminished capacity and voluntary intoxication as functional equivalents for purposes of partial exculpation from criminal responsibility."”
    2 later decisions 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.