Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 117 N.J. 331 - State v. Lark

State v. Lark’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
6
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

2 district · 62 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably State v. Preciose (1992), State v. Henderson (2011)

2 district · 62 state decisions

2601989199020002010decided

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 Stovall v. Denno · Teague v. Lane · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · Griffith v. Kentucky · Linkletter v. Walker

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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule ... [pipeline] retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenues of direct review; and, finally, (4) give the new rule complete retroactive effect. [State v. Burstein, 85 N.J. 394, 402-03 , 427 A.2d 525 (1981) (citation omitted).]”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government * * * [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) the purpose of the rule and whether it would be furthered by a retroactive application, (2) the degree of reliance placed on the old rule by those who administered it, and (3) the effect a retroactive application would have on the administration of justice.”
    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.