State v. Woolworth’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently January 1983 · most notably 26 Cal. 2d 297 - Sekt v. Justice's Court (1945), State v. Oswald (1966)
1 federal appellate · 26 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 State v. Bowman · State v. Smith · State v. Rogers · Thompson v. State · State v. Waterman
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where any indictment or information shall be quashed, set aside, or judgment reversed, the time during which the same was pending shall not be computed as part of the time of the limitation prescribed for the offense."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hemminger · State v. Bilby““You are further instructed that one of the defenses made by the defendant in this case is what is known in law as an alibi. That is, that defendant was in another place at the time of the commission of the crime. “This is a proper defense and the defendant is not required to prove an alibi beyond a reasonable doubt, or even by a preponderance of the evidence. It is sufficient to justify an acquittal if the evidence upon that point raises a reasonable doubt of his presence at the time and place of the commission of the crime charged, and the attempt of the defendant to prove an alibi does not shift the burden of proof from the prosecution, but the prosecution is bound to prove his presence, beyond a reasonable doubt. An alibi is easy to prove and hard to disprove, and testimony offered to prove this defense should be subjected, like all other evidence in the case, to rigid scrutiny for the reason that witnesses, even when truthful, may be honestly mistaken of, or forgetful of times and places.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Murray““A prosecution is deemed commenced so as to toll the statute of limitations when a complaint has been sworn to and a warrant issued in good faith. The fact that the warrant was not served on defendant where he secreted himself or was out of the state does not prevent the filing of the complaint and the issuing of the warrant from tolling the statute.” (Syl. 3) “The pendency of a complaint, as well as the pendency of an indictment or information, meets the provisions of G. S. 1935, 62-505, so as to toll the statute of limitations.” (Syl. 4)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bilby
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.