State v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably State v. Feltrop (1991), State v. Skillicorn (1997)
40 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Colorado v. Connelly · State v. Taylor · United States v. Delay · State v. Robinson
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As to Count I, if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on September 10, 1989, in the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, the defendant caused the death of James Donovan by shooting him, and Second, that defendant knew or was aware that his conduct was practically certain to cause the death of James Donovan or that it was the defendant’s purpose to cause serious physical injury to James Donovan, and Third, that defendant did so after deliberation, which means cool reflection upon the matter for any length of time no matter how brief, then you will find the defendant guilty under Count I of murder in the first-degree. However, unless you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of these propositions, you must find the defendant not guilty of murder in the first-degree. If you find the defendant guilty under Count I of murder in the first-degree, you will return a verdict finding him guilty of murder in the first-degree.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Roe · State v. Regot“Any legally recognized privileged communication, except that between attorney and client, shall not apply to situations involving known or suspected child abuse or neglect and shall not constitute grounds for failure ... to give or accept evidence in any judicial proceeding relating to child abuse or neglect.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]fter questioning[,] the court found that Dr. Vera’s diagnosis would not assist the jury in determining whether the mental disorder had any effect on the truthfulness of [the defendant’s] admissions. Dr. Vera’s testimony did nothing to aid the jury in finding the facts of the case beyond the normal duty to assess credibility and weigh the evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wright
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.