State v. Dulany’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
297 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 297 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably State v. Grim (1993), State v. Chaney (1998)
297 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 Strickland v. Washington · County of Los Angeles v. Chavez-Salido · Sanders v. State · Upper Pecos Ass'n v. Peterson · Reardon v. Meacham
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 297 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““On review, the Court accepts as true all of the evidence favorable to the state, including all favorable inferences drawn from the evidence, and disregards all evidence and inferences to the contrary. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate review is limited to a determination of whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.””
26 later decisions quote this exact passage““A person is responsible for his own conduct and he is also responsible for the conduct of other persons in committing an offense if he acts with them with the common purpose of committing an offense, or if, for the purpose of committing that offense, he aids or encourages the other persons in committing it. As to Count I, if you do not find ... Bowen guilty of murder in the first degree, you must consider whether he is guilty of murder in the second degree. As to Count I, if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on or about December 23, 1991 ... Howard caused the death of ... Easley by shooting him, and Second, ... Howard knew or was aware that his conduct was practically certain to cause the death of ... Easley, or that it was ... Howard’s purpose to cause death or serious physical injury to ... Easley, and Third, ... Howard did so after deliberation, which means cool reflection upon the matter for any length of time no matter how brief, then you are in- stracted that the offense of murder in the first degree has occurred, and if you further find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: Fourth, that with the purpose of promoting or furthering the commission of that murder in the first degree, ... Bowen aided or encouraged ... Howard in causing the death of ... Eas-ley, then you will find ... Bowen guilty under Count I of murder in the second degree. However, unless you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reason”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sammons · State v. Sherman“NOTE: Any variation in ascribing the elements of an offense to the defendant or to the other person or persons or any variation in the selection of alternatives in the paragraph following “then you are instructed that [name of offense ] has occurred ...” shall not be deemed reversible error in the absence of any prejudice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cox · State v. Jackson
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.