Flores v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Jack Dale Walker v. Gary Gibson (2000), Walker v. State (1997)
3 federal appellate · 19 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 Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Sullivan v. Louisiana · Patterson v. New York · Estelle v. Williams
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“constitutes a substantial violation of a ... statutory right.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Phillips v. State · Flores v. State“INSTRUCTION NO. 1 You are instructed that the burden of proof in this case is upon the State to establish by evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, all the material allegations contained in the Information and unless the State has met it's duty in this respect, you cannot find the defendant guilty, but must acquit him. INSTRUCTION NO. 2 You are instructed that the defendant is presumed to be not guilty of the crime charged against him in the Information unless his guilt is established by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and that presumption of being not guilty continues with the defendant unless every material allegation of the Information is proven by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. INSTRUCTION NO. 3 You are instructed that no person may be convicted of Murder in the First Degree unless the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are: 1. The death of a human; 2. The death was unlawful; 3. The death was caused by the defendant; 4. The death was caused with malice aforethought.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Phillips v. State · Flores v. State“A misstatement of the law that affirmatively negates a constitutional right or principle is often, in our view, a more serious infringement than the mere omission of a requested instruction.”
2 later decisions 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.