Porter v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Williams v. State (1981), Henry v. State (1991)
27 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 Douglas v. Alabama · Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah · Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission · Lawrence Metze v. New York · McDonald 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"a. When Presence Required. The defendant shall be present at every stage of the trial, including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict, and at the imposition of sentence, except as provided by these Rules, b. When Presence Not Required. A defendant need not be present: 1. At a conference or argument on a question of law; 2. When a nolle prosequi or stet is entered pursuant to Rule 782 (Nolle Prosequi and Stet). 3. At a reduction of sentence pursuant to Rule 773 (Sentence — Review) or Rule 774 (Sentence — Revisory Power of Court); 4. At any stage of the proceedings if the defendant is a corporation, c. When Presence Waived. A defendant initially at trial waives his right to be present when: 1. He voluntarily absents himself after the trial has commenced, whether or not he has been informed by the court of his right to remain during trial; or 2. He engages in conduct to justify his being excluded from the courtroom.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. State · Noble v. State“does not implicate the interests of the defendant. Instead, the interests to be balanced are those of the prospective juror and the administration of the court system. The trial judge must weigh the degree of hardship or inconvenience, as well as any other circumstances relating to the prospective juror's personal reasons for wanting to be excused, against the effect upon the administration of the court and the statutory obligation of every registered voter to serve when summoned as a juror. Whether or not the defendant desires to have the individual serve is irrelevant to the question of excusing the prospective juror for personal hardship.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the right to be present at every stage of the trial can never be waived by counsel’s action or inaction, should now be modified in light of present conditions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stewart v. State · Black 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.