Coblentz v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 7 district · 103 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Wilson v. State (1942), Brack v. Wells (1944)
6 federal appellate · 7 district · 103 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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. Lassotovitch · In Re Report of Grand Jury · Lanasa v. State · Campbell v. Campbell · Commonwealth v. Woodward
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he grand jury is an accusing body, and not a judicial tribunal, and it acts upon knowledge possessed by its members from any source, whether from witnesses brought before it, or from information gained before its sessions.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * we find no ground for imposing a requirement that they must be unprejudiced as the objection demands. On the contrary, such a requirement would seem inconsistent with their freedom to accuse upon their own knowledge, for persons who come with knowledge sufficient to serve as a basis of indictment are likely to come with the conclusion and prejudice to which that knowledge leads. They must act upon their own convictions, after conferring secretly and without any interference; but they are not required to come without any prejudice.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A second objection advanced in the plea was that nine members of the grand jury were disqualified from serving in the investigation and from finding this particular indictment because they had been subject to losses as depositors in the Central Trust Company, or in other depositaries which had been merged with that company, and were embittered against the defendant; and because the foreman, one of those depositors, had publicly declared his hostility to the defendant and charged him with fraud. [Id. 164 Md. at 570 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lykins 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.