State v. Nash’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 2011
3 federal appellate · 4 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 Murphy v. Carron · Foucha v. Louisiana · State v. Tooley · Woolsey v. Bank of Versailles · Marsh 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This is not a case where the acquittee had a mental disease or defect upon admission to the state hospital. And this is not a case where the mental disease or defect was in remission or was currently asymptomatic. Rather, this is a case where the acquittee never did have a mental disease or defect and the evidence was clear and convincing that the acquittee, at the time of the hearing, did not have a mental disease or defect .... Once the trial court concluded that the Appellant does not have a mental disease or defect, the trial court should have then ordered the unconditional release of the defendant (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Weekly“[I]t [is] not enough to prove present absence from mental defect, ... the person seeking unconditional release must show that he is not likely to suffer from a mental disease or defect in the reasonable future, and also establish by clear and convincing evidence ... that he will not be a danger to himself or others.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Revels v. Sanders
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.