154 N.J. Super. 201 - State v. Erickson’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 2007
9 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 Taylor v. Taintor · State v. Peace · 122 N.J. Super. 177 - State v. Hyers · 204 N.J. Super. 79 - Cooper Medical Ctr. v. Johnson · 166 Tex. Crim. 255 - Sanders v. State
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he accepted rule is that a subsequent arrest and imprisonment in the same state, although in another county, will relieve a defendant from appearing at the time and place stipulated. The very same state government which has held defendant amenable to a charge in one county, has by law taken jurisdiction or custody of him in another county ... Jurisdictions which have held that incarceration in another county does not prevent forfeiture of bail have generally done so on the basis that the court was not timely informed, or the sureties had not shown sufficient diligence in having the matter procedurally taken care of by the authorities, thereby prejudicing the state. [At 204-205, 381 A. 2d 72 ].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he mere fact that a defendant is imprisoned in another state is not sufficient to relieve a forfeiture in whole or part. State v. Fields, supra at 81 [ 347 A. 2d 811 ]. It is the same as if he had left the state and refused of his own volition to return [citation omitted]. It has long been accepted that the duty of one state to surrender the principal of a bail to another state is not absolute and unqualified, and, therefore, out-of-state incarceration of a defendant does not protect a surety. [At 204, 381 A. 2d 72 ].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“no money had been expended as a result of [defendant's] failure to appear at the arraignment....”
1 later decision 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.