State v. Dutton’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably Love v. State (1969), United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America (1983)
72 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 State v. Singleton · 85 Cal. App. 2d 686 - People v. Houser · Turley v. State of Arizona · The People v. Fiorita · 141 Cal. App. 2d 891 - People v. Cahan
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In applying this constitutional provision our prior decisions, particularly in Turley v. State, 48 Ariz. 61 , 59 P.2d 312 and State v. Singleton, 66 Ariz. 49 , at page 66, 182 P.2d 920 , at page 930, have laid down this test: had the error pointed out not been committed is there reasonable probability that the verdict might have been different? In answering this question, the members of this court must necessarily put themselves, as nearly as possible, in the position of the jury in order to determine whether, as reasonable men, the error committed probably affected their verdict.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Turning to reported cases from other jurisdictions it appears to be well settled that identification of a defendant, necessary to support a conviction, need only comply with the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Uncertainty of identifying evidence goes to its weight; rather than its admissibility. “ ‘In order to sustain a conviction it is not necessary that the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime be made positively or in a manner free from inconsistencies. It is the function of the jury to pass upon the strength or weakness of the identification and the uncertainness of the witness in giving her testimony.’ People v. Houser, 85 Cal.App.2d 686 , 193 P.2d 937 , at page 941.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Norgard · State v. Smith““No cause shall be reversed for technical error in pleading or proceedings when upon the whole case it shall appear that substantial justice has been done.””
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.