Adams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2014 · most notably Henry v. State of Mississippi (1965), 684 So. 2d 625 - Hunter v. State (1996)
80 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 Berger v. United States · Commonwealth v. Nicely · Capitol Stages, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Hewitt · State v. Osborne · Bennett v. Commonwealth
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In conducting a criminal case, the prosecuting attorney must be fair and impartial, and see that defendant is not deprived of any constitutional or statutory right.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If convinced of the defendant's guilt, he should, in an honorable way, use every power that he has to secure his conviction. At the same time, it is the duty of the prosecuting attorney, who represents all the people and has no responsibility except fairly to discharge his duty, to hold himself under proper restraint and avoid violent partisanship, partiality, and misconduct which may tend to deprive the defendant of the fair trial to which he is entitled, * * * It is the duty of the prosecutor to see that nothing but competent evidence is submitted to the jury ; * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It was too late then to legalize retroactively the illegal search already finished, or to make the evidence obtained thereby admissible at the trial of appellant here. The search was, therefore, unreasonable, under the general rule that every search and seizure is unreasonable where it is not made according to law. 47 Am.Jur., at p. 533, Section 52. Thus appellant was thereby deprived of her right to security from unreasonable search guaranteed by Section 23, Constitution 1890, through the cooperation of the district attorney, contrary to the obligation of his office. This was not his purpose, but was, nevertheless, the effect of his activities on this occasion. (Emphasis added). ( 202 Miss. at 76 , 30 So.2d at 597 ).”
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.