Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 242 U.S. 199 - Benito Lovato v. State of New Mexico

Benito Lovato v. State of New Mexico’s Empirical Analysis

242 U.S. 199 · 1916

Citation profile

157
cited by 157 later decisions
13
cited 13 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

68 federal appellate · 6 district · 66 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 157 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Wade v. Hunter (1949), Illinois v. Somerville (1973)

68 federal appellate · 6 district · 66 state decisions — followed in 17 states

72019161920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 United States v. Josef Perez · Edward Dreyer v. People of the State of Illinois · Territory of New Mexico v. Lobato

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

  1. “[ W] e think the contention that the accused was twice put in jeopardy is wholly without merit. Under the circumstances there was, in the best possible view for the accused, a mere irregularity of procedure which deprived him of no right. Indeed, when, it is borne in mind that the situation upon which the court acted resulted from entertaining a demurrer to the indictment after a plea of not guilty had been entered and not withdrawn, it is apparent that the confusion was brought about by an overcautious purpose on the part of the court to protect the rights of the accused. Whether or not, under the circumstances, it was a necessary formality to dismiss the jury in order to enable the accused to be again arraigned and plead, the action taken was clearly within the bounds of sound judicial discretion.”
    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.