State v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
1986
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 Arizona v. Manypenny · Gregg v. United States · Missouri v. Sours · State v. Hannah · State v. Perkins
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.
“We concur with the reasoning of Jones [v. State, 416 N.E.2d 880 (Ind.App.1981) ] and Manning [v. Engelkes, 281 N.W.2d 7 (Iowa 1979) ]. Although involving different facts, this court stated the same general rule in Smith v. Smith, 115 Ariz. 299, 303 , 564 P.2d 1266, 1270 (App.1977), “It is generally conceded that the bias and prejudice necessary to disqualify a judge must arise from an extra-judicial source and not from what the judge has done in his participation in the case.” We agree that the rule that a trial judge must be impartial, “does not mean that a judge must recuse himself from a criminal case merely because he has heard unfavorable remarks about the defendant in the course of prior litigation.” Commonwealth v. Campbell, 5 Mass.App.Ct. 571, 587, 366 N.E.2d 44, 57 (1977) (alleged bias based on judge presiding over earlier trial of same defendant). See also State v. Munoz, 110 Ariz. 419 , 520 P.2d 291 (1974). The cases of State v. Valencia, 124 Ariz. 139 , 602 P.2d 807 (1979) and State v. Leslie, 136 Ariz. 463 , 666 P.2d 1072 (1983), cited by defendant, are readily distinguishable. Both were cases in which the trial court spoke ex parte to relatives of murder victims prior to sentencing. The information received there was not obtained in a prior judicial proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Emanuel“The only argument raised in this appeal is that the trial court erred by denying the motion for a change of judge”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Holloway v. State
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.