State v. Alvarez’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
1 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2021 · most notably Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez (2007), State v. Colwell (2000)
1 district · 24 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 Batson v. Kentucky · Hernandez v. New York · Powers v. Ohio · Lockhart v. McCree · 22 Cal. 3d 258 - People v. Wheeler
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Every person, acting with the mental state required for the commission of an offense who directly commits the offense, who solicits, requests, commands, encourages, or intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct which constitutes an offense shall be criminally liable as a party for such conduct.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Schroyer · State v. Lomu“Party liability under section 76-2-202 does not require that the persons involved in the criminal conduct have the same mental state.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The abuse of discretion standard of review is particularly appropriate to this question .... [T]he United States Supreme Court was reluctant to define in detail what facts will raise an inference of discrimination. Likewise, we have not articulated specific factors that amount to a “strong likelihood” that minority jurors were challenged because of their racial or ethnic group membership. By according discretion to the trial court in this area, we permit “experience to accumulate at the lowest court level” until we “see more clearly what factors are important to [the] decision and how to take them into account.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Valdez
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.