Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 320 Ark. 128 - Ring v. State

Ring v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
1
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Misskelley v. State (1996), Jordan v. State (2004)

56 state decisions

360199520002010decided

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 Fare v. Michael C. · Vickers v. State · Hogan v. State · Williams v. State · Beck 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) The seriousness of the offense, and whether violence was employed by the juvenile in the commission of the offense; (2) Whether the offense is part of a repetitive pattern of adjudicated offenses which would lead to the determination that the juvenile is beyond rehabilitation under existing rehabilitation programs, as evidenced by past efforts to treat and rehabilitate the juvenile and the response to such efforts; and (3) The prior history, character traits, mental maturity, and any other factor which reflects upon the juvenile’s prospects for rehabilitation.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In Boyd [v. State, 313 Ark. 171 , 853 S.W.2d 263 (1993)], this court stated that when a prosecutor chooses to prosecute a juvenile in circuit court as an adult, the juvenile becomes subject to the procedures and penalties prescribed for adults. . . . [T]he failure of the law enforcement officers to obtain the consent of appellant’s parents to his waiver of right to counsel, as required by section 9-27-317, does not bar admission of appellant’s confession.”
    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.