Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 32 SW3D 369 - State v. Sephus

State v. Sephus’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
3
states following
October 2014
most recently cited

7 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Pelaes v. United States · United States v. Mauro · Lawrence v. United States · Cuyler v. Adams · Carchman v. Nash New Jersey Department of Corrections

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

  1. “Applying the literal text of the statute to the facts: “[Because] trial [was] not had on [the Leon County] indictment ... prior to [Sephus’s] being returned to [Pennsylvania] pursuant to Paragraph (e) of Article V hereof, [the Leon County] indictment ... [is of no] further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice.” Thus, the trial judge correctly analyzed the facts and applied the De-tainers Act to them.”
    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.