Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 235 SO2D 923 - Pieratt v. State

Pieratt v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
August 1998
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently August 1998

12 state decisions

70197019801990decided

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 Clark v. North Bay Village · James v. State · Moity v. Mahfouz · Lea v. State · Mills v. State

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

  1. “"The Court instructs the jury for the State of Mississippi that you do not have to know that the defendant is guilty before you can convict him. It is only necessary that you should believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of very other reasonable hypothesis, that he is guilty, and if you do so believe from all of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis, that the defendant is guilty, then it is your sworn duty to so find."”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"A judgment in a criminal case shall not be reversed because ... of any error or omission in the case in the court below, except where the errors or omissions are jurisdictional in their character, unless the record show that the errors complained of were made ground of special exception in that court. " (Emphasis added).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"if defendant in the present case had raised the question of variance between the indictment and the proof then the trial court could have allowed an amendment under appropriate terms. Having failed to do so, defendant may not now raise the issue". 235 So.2d at 924 .”
    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.