Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 175 Mont. 492 - State v. Hallam

State v. Hallam’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
2
states following
February 2022
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably State v. Thompson (1993), State v. Eagle (2010)

29 state decisions

80197819801990200020102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Aguilar v. Texas · Jackson v. Denno · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Gerstein v. Pugh

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

  1. “(1) The court may allow an information to be amended in matters of substance at any time, but not less than [five] days before trial, provided that a motion is filed in a timely manner, states the nature of the proposed amendment, and is accompanied by an affidavit stating facts that show the existence of probable cause to support the charge as amended. A copy of the proposed amended information must be included with the motion to amend the information. ** (2) If the court grants leave to amend the information, the defendant must be arraigned on the amended information without unreasonable delay and must be given a reasonable period of time to prepare for trial on the amended information. (3) The court may permit an information to be amended as to form at any time before a verdict or finding is issued if no additional or different offense is charged and if the substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) The prosecutor may apply directly to the district court for permission to file an information against a named defendant... (2) An application must be by affidavit supported by evidence that the judge or chief justice may require. If it appears that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed by the defendant, the judge or chief justice shall grant leave to file the information, otherwise the application is denied.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[A]n `admission' concerns only some specific fact which, in turn, tends to establish guilt or some element of the offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.