Tanner v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Ferguson v. State (2000), Moody v. Arkansas County Circuit Court (2002)
37 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 Marshall v. State · Novak v. State · Hicks v. State · MacK v. State · State v. Brummett
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Speedy-trial objections must be raised in the trial court and prior to the trial date in order to preserve the issue for review. This issue is not an exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule. The reason for our contemporaneous-objection rule is that a trial court should be given an opportunity to know the reason for disagreement with its proposed action prior to making its decision or at the time the ruling occurs. It is understandable that a defendant would not wish to call the trial court’s attention to an erroneous ruling on the excludability of time for purposes of speedy trial; however, Mack, supra, requires that a defendant do so[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Dean v. State
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.