Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 838 S.W.2d 185 - State v. Evans

State v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

76 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2019 · most notably Owens v. State (1995), State v. Howell (1993)

76 state decisions

340199220002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Brady v. State of Maryland · Duren v. Missouri · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · Castaneda v. Partida

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

  1. “[t]he murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in committing, or was an accomplice in the commission of, or was attempting to commit, or was fleeing after committing or attempting to commit, any first degree murder, arson, rape, robbery, burglary, theft, kidnapping, aircraft piracy, or unlawful throwing, placing or discharging of a destructive device or bomb.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) the group alleged to be excluded is a "distinctive” group in the community; (2) the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation the number of such persons in the community; and (3) this under representation is due to the systematic exclusion of the group in the jury selection process.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “In capital cases where the defendant has been found to be indigent by the court of record having jurisdiction of the case, such court in an ex parte hearing may in its discretion determine that investigative or expert services or other similar services are necessary to ensure that the constitutional rights of the defendant are properly protected.”
    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.