Paramo v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently November 2017
16 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1791
Relies on Schmuck v. United States · United States v. Philip Berrigan, in No. 72-1938, and Elizabeth McAlister Appeal of Elizabeth McAlister In · Wilson v. State · State v. Keffer · United States v. Yanishefsky
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] district court's failure to give a lesser included offense instruction when such an offense indeed exists, and the evidence presented would support conviction upon that offense, constitutes reversible error. Eatherton v. State, 761 P.2d 91, 95 (Wy.1988).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Sanders v. State · Pearson v. State“Under this test, one offense is not “necessarily included” in another unless the elements of the lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the charged offense. Where the lesser offense requires an element not required for the greater offense, no instruction is to be given under [Wyoming Criminal Rule 31(c) ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sindelar 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.