State v. Puryear’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently August 2014
21 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 44 Cal. 2d 861 - People v. Penny · 47 Cal. 2d 167 - People v. Stuart · State v. Branch · State v. Sorensen · State v. Sustaita
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e are impressed with the fact that appellant made no complaint about the lack of specificity in the indictment until after the State’s opening statement____ Under Rule 13.5(c), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defect in the charging document cannot be raised except by a motion filed in accordance with Rule 16. Rule 16.1(b) requires that such motion be made no later than 20 days prior to trial____ Since appellant waited until trial to make his motion on the sufficiency of the indictment, the trial court did not err in precluding it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Winter
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.