Preston v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2013 · most notably Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. (1991), Murphy v. State (1976)
3 federal appellate · 42 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 New v. State · Cotton v. State · Rowe v. State · Dobbs v. State · State v. Schroeppel
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... It is true that no witness pointed to the appellant at trial and said, `that is the man.' However, at least three witnesses referred to the `defendant' as being the person at the shopping center who committed the crime... ." (Original emphasis.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘The evidence further shows that at various times Fred Sehroeppel, the appellee (defendant below), was referred to ... as ‘the defendant’ during trial. We may assume the defendant was present in court since the law requires his presence during the trial and no issue is made on that point. It is well settled that a defendant may-be identified by name.’ ” (our emphasis) Preston, supra, 287 N.E.2d 348 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is a material element of the State's case to prove that the person who committed the crime is the person presently on trial. Having a supposed eye-witness testify to a name or refer to the title "defendant" does not tend to prove this element but merely tends to establish that criminal acts were committed by a person who may or may not be the present defendant. Trials are designed to test the truth or falsity of allegations made against a person in custody not against a name in the abstract. A definite link must be established between the person actually on trial and the crime. It is not sufficient to simply link the crime and a name.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Murphy v. State
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.