State v. . Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
1881
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023
6 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.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is important not to confound the principles upon which the two classes of cases rest. On the one hand it is admissible to produce evidence of a distinct crime to prove scienter , or make out the res gestae , or to exhibit a chain of circumstantial evidence of guilt in respect to the act charged. On the other, it is necessary strictly to limit the evidence to these exceptions, and to exclude it, when it does not legitimately fall within their scope.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. . Beam“A particular line is not fixed upon. All is evidence with a view to the scienter . There is no excluding the other articles found. But I do not think you should go further.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. . Beam“there should be some evidence showing a link or connection between them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. . Beam
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.