Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 702 SW2D 560 - State v. Martin

State v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
1
states following
June 2006
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently June 2006 · most notably Coe v. Bell (1998), State v. Brown (1992)

8 federal appellate · 28 state decisions

180198519902000decided

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 Sandstrom v. Montana · Francis v. Franklin · Jones v. Howard · State v. Duncan · State v. Dicks

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

  1. “If it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged victim was killed, the killing is presumed to be malicious, in the absence of evidence which would rebut the implied presumption.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Repeated blows or shots may support an inference of premeditation. See Houston v. State, 593 S.W.2d 267, 273 (Tenn.1980). It is also possible that the jury could have found that during the struggle [with the victim] appellant decided to kill the victim, only a moment of time being required between the plan to kill and its execution. Clarke v. State, 218 Tenn. 259 , 402 S.W.2d 863, 868 (1966).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “They are merely “patterns” or suggestions and serve no other purpose. It is the responsibility of the trial judge to prepare the jury instructions, and while previously printed forms may be convenient, these must be revised or supplemented if necessary in order to state the applicable law fully and accurately.”
    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.