Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 202 Neb. 828 - Simants v. State

Simants v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
6
states following
February 2021
most recently cited

2 district · 41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably 435 So. 2d 645 - Leatherwood v. State (1983), State v. Jacob (1998)

2 district · 41 state decisions

170197919801990200020102020decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Mattox v. United States · Turner v. Louisiana · Gonzales v. Beto, Corrections Director · State v. Simants

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

  1. ““A fair trial before a fair and impartial jury is a basic requirement of constitutional due process. To condone the conduct of Sheriff Gilster in this case would violate the fundamental integrity of all that is embraced in the constitutional concept of a fair trial by a fair and impartial jury. The stability and integrity of the American system of justice demands that those principles be maintained inviolate. Under the circumstances here the convictions and sentences of the defendant must be vacated and the cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The foundational basis for the rule of presumptive prejudice is that a fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of constitutional due process. The reasons for the rule have been variously expressed by the courts. “ ‘The verdict of a jury * * * should represent the concurring judgment, reason and intelligence of the entire jury, free from outside influence from any source whatever.’ ” Bramlett v. State, 129 Neb. 180 , 261 N.W. 166 [(1935)].”
    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.