State v. Dice’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

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

1. “(b) Pretrial motions. Any defense objection or request which is capable of determination without trial of the general issue may be raised before the trial by motion. The following must be raised pri- or to trial: (1) Defenses and objections based on defects in the prior proceedings in the prosecution; or (2) Defenses and objections based on defects in the ... indictment ...; (d) Motion date. Motions pursuant to Rule 12(b) must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of a plea of not guilty or seven (7) days before trial whichever is earlier. In felony cases, such motions must be brought on for hearing within fourteen (14) days after filing or forty-eight (48) hours before trial whichever is earlier. The court in its discretion ... for good cause shown, or for excusable neglect, may relieve a party of failure to comply with this rule. (f) Effect of failure to raise defenses or objections. Failure by the defendant to raise defenses or objections or to make requests which must be made prior to trial, or at the time set by the court pursuant to subsection (d), or prior to any extension thereof made by the court, shall constitute waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Cochran

2. “The error of the district court was in its analysis of the relationship between investigatory stops and the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda ____ The district court found that questions requiring self-incriminating answers were beyond the scope of permissible inquiry and therefore required Miranda warnings. This distinction, however, has never been made by the United States Supreme Court nor by the appellate courts of this state. Indeed, virtually any investigatory questioning, beyond mere identification matters, could be considered self-incriminating.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Tennison M. Silver