Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 318 Ark. 225 - Casement v. State

Casement v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Walley v. State (2003), Hanley v. Arkansas State Claims Commission (1998)

31 state decisions

1501994200020102020decided

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 Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. · Lupo v. Lineberger · Matthews v. State · State v. Sypult · Duncan 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted by this court by per curiam order entered December 22, 1975, to be effective on January 1, 1976, pursuant to Act 470 of 1971, and in harmony with this court’s superintending control over the trial courts under our state Constitution. Matthews v. State, 268 Ark. 484 , 598 S.W.2d 58 (1980). That act specifically authorized this court to prescribe rules of practice and procedure with respect to all criminal case proceedings, and provided further that all laws in conflict with such rules are of no further effect after such rules have taken effect. Section 4, Act 470 of 1971. We have recognized that, in the interests of promoting important public policies and state interests, the legislature will enact laws which will occasionally conflict with the rules of this court. State v. Sypult, 304 Ark. 5 , 800 S.W.2d 402 (1990). In that event, we have declared that, to protect against the total abrogation of the rules of procedure vital to the interests and policies of the judicial process, “we will defer to the General Assembly, when conflicts arise, only to the extent that the conflicting court rule’s primary purpose and effectiveness are not compromised; otherwise, our rules remain supreme.” Id. at 7 , 800 S.W.2d at 404 ; Hickson v. State, 316 Ark. 783, 785 , 875 S.W.2d 492, 493 (1994) (’’Statutes are given deference only to the extent that they are compatible with our rules, and conflicts which compromise these rules are resolved w”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.