Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 269 Ark. 556 - Thorne v. State

Thorne v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
2
states following
January 2026
most recently cited

42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably Leggins v. State (1980), Clay v. State (1986)

42 state decisions

19019801990200020102020decided

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 Ungar v. Sarafite · Tyler v. State · Golden v. State · Freeman v. State · Pulaski County ex rel. Mears v. Adkisson

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

  1. “. . . whether other continuances have been requested and granted; the length of the requested delay; whether the requested delay is for legitimate reasons; whether or not the motion for a continuance was timely filed; whether or not the defendant contributed to the circumstances giving rise to the request for a continuance; . . . whether the request is consistent with the fair, efficient and effective administration of justice; whether the denial of the continuance resulted in identifiable prejudice to the defendant’s case of a material or substantial nature; . . . Not one of these factors is a prerequisite to the granting of a continuance, but these and other factors are the legitimate subject of the court’s attention when a continuance is requested. [ 269 Ark. at 561 ; 601 S.W.2d at 889 ]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It is clear that the question of a continuance is within the discretion of the trial judge and not every denial of a request for more time violates due process or Constitutional mandates. The burden is on the appellant to show that there has been an abuse of discretion. The right to choose counsel may not be manipulated or subverted to obstruct the orderly procedures of the Court or to interfere with the fair, efficient and effective administration of justice. In each such situation the Court must look at the particular circumstances of the case at bar and the issue must be decided on a case by case basis.”
    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.