State v. Pride’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 2017
17 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000B
Relies on Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. L Smith · City of Boerne v. Flores · Holsey v. Director of Classification for Division of Corrections · State v. Grim
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defendant suffers actual prejudice only if the indictment or information was so deficient that the defendant was not placed on notice as to what crime he was being charged with, or was so lacking in clarity that the defendant was unable to properly prepare a defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Baker“In either event, a defendant will not be entitled to relief based on a post-verdict claim that the information or indictment is insufficient unless the defendant demonstrates actual prejudice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Baker
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.