State v. White’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently June 2004 · most notably State v. Holmes (1980), State v. Howard (1972)
46 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 Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Sam Destefano v. Woods, Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois. Frank Anthony Carceran · Stassen for President Citizens Committee v. Jordan · Davis v. United States · Gallego v. United States
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Cases in which the punishment may be capital shall be tried by a jury of twelve jurors, all of whom must concur to render a verdict. Cases in which the punishment is necessarily at hard labor shall be tried by a jury composed of twelve jurors, nine of whom must concur to render a verdict. Cases in which the punishment may be imprisonment at hard labor, shall be tried by a jury composed of five jurors, all of whom must concur to render a verdict. Except as provided in Article 780, trial by jury may not be waived.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brumfield“are ordinary words and are used constantly in everyday conversation. They indicate a transfer or handing over. For these reasons, we conclude that LAC 17-11:14.6 gives an individual adequate notice of the proscribed conduct and it provides adequate standards for those charged with determining the guilt or innocence of an accused. Accordingly, we find that the regulation is not unconstitutionally vague. Defendant's second contention is that LAC 17-11:14.6 is not a valid”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“This bill is without merit. Bill of Exceptions No. 2 This bill was reserved when the trial court at hearing on a motion to suppress refused to allow defense counsel to pursue a line of questioning of the arresting officer as to the events which transpired after the defendants were transported to central lockup and turned over to the station booking officer. The objection was that defense counsel was”
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.