State v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2006 · most notably State v. Young (1985), State v. Stokes (1987)
41 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 Oyler v. Boles · Bowsher v. Merck & Co. · Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Township of Wakefield · Beal v. Franklin · State v. Pinch
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[district attorneys have wide discretion in performing the duties of their office. This encompasses the discretion to decide who will or will not be prosecuted. In making such decisions, district attorneys must weigh many factors such as “the likelihood of successful prosecution, the social value of obtaining a conviction as against the time and expense to the State, and his own sense of justice in the particular case.” Comment, The Right to Nondiscriminatory Enforcement of State Penal Laws, 61 Columbia L. Rev. 1103, 1119 (1961). The proper exercise of his broad discretion in his consideration of factors which relate to the administration of criminal justice aids tremendously in achieving the goal of fair and effective administration of the criminal justice system.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The defendant’s evidence does not show that the district attorney, or anyone acting pursuant to his instructions, affirma tively instructed any witnesses not to cooperate with the defendant’s attorneys. The evidence was clearly insufficient, standing alone, to establish an obstructing of access to either witness sufficient to impose sanctions in the form of excluding their testimony at the trial of the instant case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mason“`that the selection was deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.'”
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.