State v. Wellner’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably State v. Mattson (2005), State v. Ashker (1987)
31 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 Katz v. United States · Payton v. New York · Rakas v. Illinois · Roviaro v. United States · Rawlings v. Kentucky
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.
“`qualified jurors need not be ignorant of facts and issues and that the existence of pretrial publicity alone is not enough to deny a defendant a fair trial.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ashker · State v. Petersen“A change of venue shall be ordered upon motion if the court is satisfied that there exists, in the county where the prosecution is pending, so great a prejudice against defendant that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in that county. SDCL 23A-17-5. Generally, the law presumes that a defendant can receive a fair and impartial trial in the county in which the offense is committed.... The test is whether there is, in fact, prejudice in the minds of the county residents sufficient to raise a reasonable apprehension that the accused will not receive a fair and impartial trial in that county. The burden of establishing that a fair and impartial trial cannot occur in such county is upon the applicant. Granting or refusing a change of venue involves the discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse that decision only upon a showing of discretion abuse. [Cites omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Christians“In reviewing ... affidavits, we must remember that the search warrant should not be invalidated by interpreting the affidavits in a hypertechnical manner; rather, we should read each affidavit as a whole and interpret each in a common sense and realistic manner. [Citations omitted.] ‘The resolution of a marginal showing of probable cause on an affidavit should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants.’ State v. Clark, 281 N.W.2d [412,] 414 [ (S.D.1979) ]. Thus, every reasonable inference possible should be drawn in support of the magistrate’s determination of probable cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Engel
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.