Guzman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
1,225 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,227 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably State v. Ross (2000), Carmouche v. State (2000)
1,225 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 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Ornelas v. United States · Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. · Montgomery v. State · Villarreal v. State
Cited together with Terry v. Ohio · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Jackson v. Virginia · Carmouche v. State · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
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 1,227 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]s a general rule, the appellate courts ... should afford almost total deference to a trial court’s determination of the historical facts that the record supports especially when the trial court’s fact findings are based on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor [citation omitted]. The appel late courts ... should afford the same amount of deference to trial court rulings on “application of law to fact questions,” also known as “mixed questions of law and fact,” if the resolution of those ultimate questions turns on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. The appellate courts may review de novo “mixed questions of law and fact” not falling within this category-”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Vargas v. State · State v. Daly“almost total deference to a trial court's determination of historical facts”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In a motion to suppress hearing where the only evidence presented is the testimony of the arresting officer (which, if believed, adds up to probable cause) and the trial court grants the motion without any explanation, there is not necessarily a “concrete” set of facts that can be implied from such a ruling. The trial court may have disbelieved the officer on at least one material fact, or the trial court may be in a situation in which it does not know what exactly the facts are, but it does know (on the basis of demeanor, appearance, and credibility) that they are not as the witness describes. In this situation, the appellate court does not necessarily have a set of historical facts to which it may apply the law. The determination of probable cause rests entirely on the credibility of the lone witness. This scenario is a mixed question of law and fact, the resolution of which turns on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. The proper standard of review is therefore the second category of Guzman , “almost total deference” to the trial ruling.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Angleton v. State · State v. Boone
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.