Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 289 Ark. 193 - Tarry v. State

Tarry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
6
states following
November 2020
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 69 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Herron v. State (1991), Smith v. State (2003)

2 federal appellate · 69 state decisions

26019861990200020102020decided

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 Montellano v. United States · Andrews v. State · Rowe v. State · Williams v. State · Martin v. State

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

  1. “After the jury retires for deliberation, if there is a disagreement between them as to any part of the evidence, or if they desire to be informed on a point of law, they must require the officer to conduct them into court. Upon their being brought into court, the information required must be given in the presence of, or after notice to, the counsel of the parties.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he Commentary explains that the same conduct is intended to connote the same criminal transaction. The defendant may not be convicted of more than one offense if the conduct constitutes an offense defined as a continuing course of conduct. The Commentary explains that a continuing offense is one such as nonsupport or promoting prostitution. [ 289 Ark. at 193 , 710 S.W.2d at 203 ]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[W]e must infer that the judge went back into the jury room and answered the questions in some fashion; we do not know exactly how. The procedure was improper and must be deemed prejudicial to the defendant.”
    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.