State v. Candela’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably State v. Clay (1998), State v. Bucklew (1998)
38 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 State v. Grim · State v. Bernard · State v. Purlee · State v. Silvey · Osborne 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The seriousness of Amber’s head trauma provided, in itself, a basis for inferring defendant knew her actions were practically certain to cause serious physical injury: “A jury can infer intent to cause physical bodily harm when ‘under the circumstances, the prohibited result may reasonably be expected to follow from a voluntary act, irrespective of any subjective desire on the part of the offender to have accomplished the prohibited result.’ ” State v. Franklin, 854 S.W.2d 55, 58 (Mo.App. W.D.1993) (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Broseman“Generally, an expert may rely on hearsay evidence as support for opinions, as long as that evidence is of a type reasonably relied upon by other experts in the field; such evidence need not be independently admissible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Tillman“[mJedical records and police reports, such as were purportedly relied on ... here, can be relied upon by expert witnesses in giving their opinions”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Tillman
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.