Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 77 S.D. 120 - State v. Wood

State v. Wood’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
states following
June 1999
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently June 1999 · most notably State v. Best (1975), State v. Belt (1961)

32 state decisions

14019571960197019801990decided

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 State v. Sinnott · State v. Johnson · Gillespie v. Great Northern Railway Co. · State v. Dale · State v. Pickus

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

  1. ““Defendant contends that the deputy state’s attorney was guilty of such misconduct as requires reversal. After commenting upon the rule that the burden of proving defendant’s guilt was on the State, counsel said to the jury that in his opinion the facts justified the conclusion that accused was ‘guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ This court has expressed itself as to the impropriety of a state’s attorney expressing from personal knowledge his opinion as to the guilt of an accused. State v. Johnson, 76 S.D. 37 , 71 N.W.2d 733 . His belief is not evidence in the case. This is distinguishable from a statement to the jury of a belief based upon the facts in evidence. The state’s attorney in other words has the right to argue to the jury that certain testimony in the case convinces him that accused is guilty. The record does not completely show the connection in which the belief of counsel was expressed, but seemingly was based upon evidence in the case. If the statement were not entirely proper, it clearly was not prejudicial.” (emphasis supplied) 77 S.D. at 124 , 86 N.W.2d at 532 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Absence of direct proof of venue does not defeat conviction where it is properly inferable from the evidence.”
    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.