State v. Angel C.’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 93 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably 27 Cal. 4th 537 - Manduley v. Superior Court (2002), State v. Skakel (2006)
2 federal appellate · 93 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 5005 · 18 U.S.C. § 5032
Relies on Gerstein v. Pugh · Hewitt v. Helms · Meachum v. Fano · Kent v. United States · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co.
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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] state's attorney may, not later than ten working days after [arraignment of the juvenile in the regular criminal docket], file a motion to transfer the case of any child charged with the commission of a class B felony to the docket for juvenile matters. . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[O]nce a state provides its citizens with certain statutory rights beyond those secured by the constitution itself, the constitution forbids the state from depriving individuals of those statutory rights without due process of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. BB · State v. RW““Judicial proceedings must be clothed in the raiment of due process, while the processes of prosecutorial decision-making wear very different garb. It is one thing to hold, as we have, that when a state makes waiver of a juvenile court’s jurisdiction a judicial function, the judge must cast about the defendant all of the trappings of due process, but it does not necessarily follow that a state or the United States may not constitutionally treat the basic question as a prosecutorial function. ... [T]he character of the proceeding, rather than its consequences to the accused, are largely determinative of his rights.... [T]he guaranty of a hearing found in the due process clause of the Fifth [and Fourteenth] Amendment[s] has traditionally been limited to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. It has never been held applicable to the processes of prosecutorial decision-making.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Butler
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.