State v. Lively’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably 135 Wash. 2d 326 - State v. Riles (1998), In the Matter of Charles (1998)
1 federal appellate · 84 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 Rochin v. People of California · United States v. Russell · Patterson v. New York · Sorrells v. United States · Sherman v. United States
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The rule of lenity provides that where an ambiguous statute has two possible interpretations, the statute is to be strictly construed in favor of the defendant.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant failed to prove the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Defendant argues that the mitigating factors listed above [i.e. trial court findings in support of the exceptional sentence based on defendant’s failed entrapment defense] in effect result in a finding of entrapment, as a matter of law, by the trial court. This court will not conclude, however, that mitigating factors used to justify an exceptional sentence may be considered in evaluating whether there was sufficient evidence to submit an issue to a jury. Such a finding would result in a reluctance of courts to examine mitigating circumstances which justify exceptional sentences. Moreover, the trial court may not substitute its own evaluation of the evidence for that of the jury where the court has denied a motion to dismiss based on the insufficiency of the evidence.”
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.