State v. Parker’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably State v. Garcia (1983), News Company v. Casado (1983)
2 federal appellate · 32 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 North Carolina v. Pearce · Colten v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · Michigan v. Payne · State v. Addington · State v. Jerrel
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a trial de novo ... regardless of lack of error or the nature of his plea in the lower court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘Due process of law, then, requires that vindictiveness against a defendant for having successfully attacked his first conviction must play no part in the sentence he receives after a new trial. And since the fear of such vindictiveness may unconstitutionally deter a defendant’s exercise of the right to appeal or collaterally attack his first conviction, due process also requires that a defendant be freed of apprehension of such a retaliatory motivation on the part of the sentencing judge.’ ( 395 U.S. 725 .) “ ‘In order to assure the absence of such a motivation, we have concluded that whenever a judge imposes a more severe sentence upon a defendant after a new trial, the reasons for his doing so must affirmatively appear. Those reasons must be based, upon objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding. And the factual data upon which the increased sentence is based must be made part of the record, so that the constitutional legitimacy of the increased sentence may be fully reviewed on appeal.’ ( 395 U.S. 726 )” 213 Kan. at 234 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lara““The discretion of a trial court extends to permitting, restricting, or refusing to allow a protracted cross-examination of a witness covering ground which is useless, irrelevant or previously covered. The extent of cross-examination is a matter generally within the discretion of the trial court and in the absence of a clear abuse of that discretion no prejudicial error results from the exercise of that discretion.” (p. 231.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Crowley
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.