State v. Robertson’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
1 district · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably State v. Litherland (2000), State v. Maestas (2012)
1 district · 56 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 Hughey v. United States · Indelicato v. United States · Bullock v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co. · State v. Pena · State v. Bishop
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is plainly wrong in that the incident so likely influenced the jury that the defendant cannot be said to have had a fair trial, we will not find that the court's decision was an abuse of discretion.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Harmon · State v. Tafuna“[It is inappropriate to instruct that a reasonable doubt is not merely a possibility.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Austin · State v. Reyes“We will not reverse a trial court's denial of a motion for mistrial absent an abuse of discretion.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Tafuna · State v. Vargas
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.