State v. Nardella’s Empirical Analysis
1931
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 1963
6 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 Frank v. Mangum · James Howard v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · Donnelly v. State · State v. Genese · State v. Peacock
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel in his defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It must be conceded that, in a capital case, the better practice is to have the defendant in court at all times during the trial. * * *””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Auld
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.