Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 719 SW2D 578 - Godsey v. State

Godsey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

100
cited by 100 later decisions
3
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 95 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Jones v. State (1996), Bignall v. State (1994)

2 federal appellate · 95 state decisions

45019861990200020102020decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Royster v. State · Carlsen v. State · Lugo v. State · Bell 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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"First, the lesser included offense must be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged. Secondly, there must be some evidence in the record that if the defendant is guilty, he is guilty of only the lesser offense." Royster, supra, at 446 .”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “cannot be plucked out of the record and examined in a vacuum”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Appellant was not merely waving the gun around. He deliberately pulled it out, after seeing the armed officers with their guns pointed at him. He ignored their orders not to draw the gun and then to drop the gun. And, finally, he pointed the gun in such a way that it was almost as if he were ‘drawing a bead’ on [the officers]. In addition, the jury heard the evidence about appellant’s suicide wishes. The inference to be gotten from the evidence and one which supports an intent to kill, is that appellant could have decided to shoot the officers so that they would then shoot him.”
    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.