McDuff v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
304 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 305 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably King v. State (1997), Mosley v. State (1998)
304 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Jurek v. Texas · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Martin Exploration Management Co. · New Jersey v. New York
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 305 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Abandonment is primarily a question of intent to be inferred from the words spoken, acts done, and other objective facts and relevant circumstances, with the issue not being in the strict property-right sense, but rather whether the accused had voluntarily discarded, left behind, or otherwise relinquished his interest in the property so that he could no longer retain a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to it at the time of the search.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the venue determination, was a jury rationally justified in finding venue by a preponderance of the evidence?”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Sudds v. State · LaSalle v. State“First, when considered by itself, evidence supporting the verdict may be too weak to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, there may be both evidence supporting the verdict and evidence contrary to the verdict. Weighing all the evidence under this balancing scale, the contrary evidence may be strong enough that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard could not have been met, so the guilty verdict should not stand. This standard acknowledges that evidence of guilt can “preponderate” in favor of conviction but still be insufficient to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Stated another way, evidence supporting guilt can “outweigh” the contrary proof and still be factually insufficient under a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tinker 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.