State v. Stokes’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably State v. Hutchins (1981), State v. Baldwin (1970)
48 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 Glasser v. United States · Johnson v. Zerbst · Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission · Aetna Ins Co Kennedy Bogash Springfield Fire Marine Ins Co v. Same Liverpool & London & Globe Ins Co Limited · United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. United States Bay Counties Dist Council of Carpenters
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) such certainty in the statement of the accusation as will identify the offense with which the accused is sought to be charged, (2)to protect the accused from being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, (3) to enable the accused to prepare for trial, and (4) to enable the court, on conviction or plea of Nolo contendere or guilty to pronounce sentence according to the rights of the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]t is necessary to the legal sufficiency of an indictment charging the commission of a crime against nature to state with exactitude, inter alia, the name of the person with or against whom the offense was committed, in order that there can be certitude in the statement of the accusation as will identify the offense with which the accused is sought to be charged and to protect the accused from being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[tjhere is nothing in the record before us to indicate that defendant has waived his fundamental constitutional right to challenge the legal sufficiency of the indictment.”
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.