Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 768 P.2d 746 - People v. Beyer

People v. Beyer’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
September 2013
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently September 2013

9 state decisions

401988199020002010decided

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 People v. District Court, Second Judicial District · Taylor v. People

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

  1. “[The word "incident" is not limited in meaning to a separate unit of experience, but is defined also as "an occurrence ... taking place as part of a larger continuum" or "a happening or related group of happenings" subordinate to a main plot. Hence, an incident may logically include a series of acts committed in close proximity or a chain of events forming a part of a schematic whole.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The charges against defendant arose from a series of events that began in an automotive repair shop in Colorado Springs. Ronald Aylesworth, accompanied by his friend Martin Newville, drove to the shop to settle a dispute over recent repairs made on Aylesworth’s truck with Bradley Mitchell, the shop operator and codefendant here. Upon their arrival, Aylesworth and Newville were taken to the back of the shop where they found themselves surrounded by four armed men, including defendant and Mitchell. The victims were instructed to lie down on the floor, and when Aylesworth failed to comply defendant shot him. Both victims were then bound and placed in the back seat of Aylesworth’s truck. Defendant drove the truck to a remote mountainous area while Mitchell sat in the front passenger seat holding a gun. The victims were then ordered out of the truck, at which time Aylesworth collapsed as a result of his injuries. With the assistance of Newville, defendant began carrying Ayles-worth down the mountain slope into a ravine while Mitchell held his own gun and defendant’s gun. At some point the codefendants alternated and Mitchell carried Aylesworth while defendant held the guns. Newville was tied to a tree at the bottom of the ravine and both victims were abandoned.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[Tjhe word “incident” as used in this statutory scheme is a term of limitation intended by the General Assembly to mean a single occurrence rather than a broader range of events.... [Bjecause the shooting of Aylesworth, the transporting of the victims to the mountains, and the abandonment were separate incidents as opposed to a single incident, the statute is inapplicable to the facts of this case.”
    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.