State v. Pitts’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 118 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 121 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Rendine v. Pantzer (1995), State v. Harvey (1997)
3 federal appellate · 118 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 California v. Brown · State v. Johnson · Drew v. United States · Cleveland v. United States · McClain v. United States
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 121 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is whether, assuming the charges were tried separately, evidence of the offenses sought to be severed would be admissible under Evid.Rule 55 [4] in the trial of the remaining charges”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Defendant's psychiatrist] did not testify that defendant's state of mind when he stabbed the victims was caused by his mental disorders; rather, he based his opinion on what defendant had told him about the homicides and on the physical evidence, as well as on his testing of defendant. Nor did [defendant's psychiatrist] testify that defendant's particular mental disorders were generally acknowledged among psychiatrists to be capable of affecting one's ability to possess the state of mind required by the Code for murder. [ Id. at 609-610 , 562 A. 2d 1320 ].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or accusation in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on 2 or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common plan. Relief from prejudicial joinder shall be afforded as provided by R. 3:15-2.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.