Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 317 SO2D 172 - State v. Stetson

State v. Stetson’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably State v. Dorthey (1993), Opinions of the Justices to the House of Representatives (1979)

33 state decisions

16019751980199020002010decided

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 Barker v. Wingo · Furman v. Georgia · United States v. Marion · Trop v. Dulles · United States v. Ewell

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

  1. “The statute represents a legislative assessment of relative interests of the-state and defendant in administering and 1 ^receiving justice; it is enacted for the repose of society and the protection qf those who may have lost their means of defense because of the passage of the prescribed time. The statute furnishes the desirable ingredient of predictability by specifying a limit beyond which there is an irrefutable presumption that a defendant’s right to a fair trial would be prejudiced. Its purpose is to limit exposure to criminal prosecution to a fixed period of time following the occurrence of those acts the legislature has decided to punish by criminal sanction. By this limitation individuals are protected from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time. Danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past are minimized. Law enforcement officials are encouraged by such a limitation to promptly investigate suspected criminal activity.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “is not so severe as to be degrading, nor is it arbitrarily inflicted or unacceptable to contemporary society, [or] disproportionate to the crime.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"Actually, prejudice to the defense of a criminal case may result from the shortest and most necessary delay; yet, no one suggests that every delay causing detriment to a defendant's case should abort a criminal prosecution. To accommodate the sound administration of justice to the defendant's rights to due process and a fair trial will necessarily involve a deliberate judgment based on the facts and circumstances of each case. It would be unwise at this juncture to attempt to forecast those decisions. United States v. Marion, supra ." 317 So.2d at 175-176 .”
    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.