Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 174 Mont. 99 - State v. Cool

State v. Cool’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
January 2012
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 2012

14 state decisions

4019771980199020002010decided

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 Benton v. Maryland · United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. · Ball v. United States · Fong Foo v. United States · State v. Coleman

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

  1. ““(1) Except as otherwise specifically authorized, the state may not appeal in a criminal case. “(2) The state may appeal from any court order or judgment the substantial effect of which results in: (a) dismissing a case;” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Here the state contends the state of Montana has a statutory right to appeal under section 95-2403(b)(l). It argues the District Court’s ruling was in fact a dismissal. Defendant argues this was a motion for acquittal and such a motion does not constitute a dismissal of the case as contemplated in section 95-2403(b)(l). “We find no merit in the state’s argument in relation to section 95-2403(b)(l), because subsection (b)(1) simply does not apply to the instant fact situation, no matter how the state tortures the language used by the District Court. The court very clearly and with precision informed the state in reference to the evidence: ‘I am just saying that it’s insufficient.’ There can be no question from the record before this Court that the District Court’s dismissal was an acquittal in substance as well as form.” 174 Mont, at 101, 568 P.2d at 568 .”
    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.