Candelaria v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Hodges v. State (1995), Madrid v. State (1996)
33 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 Martinez v. State · Farbotnik v. State · Roderick v. State · Van Riper v. State · Stone v. State
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An error warrants reversal only when it is prejudicial and it affects an appellant's substantial rights. The party who is appealing bears the burden to establish that an error was prejudicial.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Roeschlein v. State · Lee v. State“Id. at 438 . This Court disagreed, finding that the proposed instruction was unnecessary in light of the instruction given that the jury could consider the victims' actions in determining whether Cande-laria's wrongful act was the proximate cause of the victims' deaths. Id. The foreseeability issue was not expressly addressed in our holding in Candelaria. 11 . Appellant's defense counsel did cross-examine Tina Evans regarding why she did not include similar information or observations in her own prior written statement, to which Tina Evans simply replied,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Allen v. State“At the request of a party the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and it may enter the order on its own motion. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (1) a party who is a natural person, or (2) an officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of his cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Madrid v. State
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.