Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 953 A2D 957 - Burrell v. State

Burrell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

12 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Ornelas v. United States · McDougall v. North Carolina · Flamer v. State · Probst v. State

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We review de novo the Superior Court’s jury instructions and its interpretation of a statute.”); Burrell v. State, 953 A.2d 957, 960 (Del.2008) ("[T]his Court must review the correctness of the trial judge’s application of the law to [the trial court’s] factual findings. When a question of law is at issue, the standard of appellate review is de novo.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[a] trial court's jury instructions are not a ground for reversal if they are reasonably informative and not misleading when judged by common practices and standards of verbal communication.”
    1 later decision 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.