Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1998 ND 66 - State v. Serr

State v. Serr’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
3
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 2021

19 state decisions

801998200020102020decided

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 Zafiro v. United States · United States v. Bayer · United States v. Felix · Lewis v. Gober · United States v. Kozinski

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

  1. “(a) Probable Cause Finding. If the magistrate finds probable cause to believe an offense has been committed and the defendant committed the offense, an arraignment must be scheduled. The finding of probable cause may be based on hearsay evidence in whole or in part. The defendant may cross-examine adverse witnesses and may introduce evidence. The magistrate may receive evi dence that would be inadmissible at the trial. (b) Discharge of the Defendant. If the magistrate hears evidence on behalf of the respective parties in a preliminary examination, and finds either a public offense has not been committed or there is not sufficient cause to believe the defendant guilty of the offense, the magistrate must discharge the defendant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “A person commits conspiracy if he agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause conduct which, in fact, constitutes an offense or offenses, and any one or more of such persons does an overt act to effect an objective of the conspiracy. The agreement need not be explicit but may be implicit in the fact of collaboration or existence of other circumstances.”
    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.