State v. Culkin’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably State v. Fisher (2003), State v. Maluia (2005)
37 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 In re Oliver · Waller v. Georgia · Geders v. United States · Gurliacci v. Mayer · Gannett Co Inc v. A
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hen jury instructions or the omission thereof are at issue on appeal, the standard of review is whether, when read and considered as a whole, the instructions given are prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or misleading.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Uyesugi · State v. Eberly“The first prong is subjective; it requires a determination of whether the defendant had the requisite belief that deadly force was necessary to avert death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy. .... If the State does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not have the requisite belief that deadly force was necessary, the factfinder must then proceed to the second prong of the test. This prong is objective; it requires a determination of whether a reasonably prudent person in the same situation as the defendant would have believed that deadly force was necessary for self-protection.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We apply two different standards of review in addressing evidentiary issues. Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, unless application of the rule admits of only one correct result, in which case review is under the right/wrong standard. State v. Ortiz, 91 Hawai'i 181, 189 , 981 P.2d 1127, 1135 (1999) (citations and internal quotation signals omitted). An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court has clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or has disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bermisa · State v. Arakawa
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.