State v. Kranz’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 2021
21 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 Boykin v. Alabama · Brady v. United States · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Tibbs v. Florida · Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) Trial by Jury. Trial shall be by jury in all cases as provided by law unless the defendant waives a jury trial in writing or in open court with the approval of the court and consent of the prosecuting attorney.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““27-07.1-31. Defendants in criminal actions entitled to jury trial— When to be informed thereof — Waiver. Except as otherwise provided by law, a defendant in a criminal action in a county court shall be entitled to a trial by jury, and when the defendant is arraigned he shall be informed by the court of this right. If the defendant waives the right to a jury trial, an entry to that effect shall be made on the court minutes.” “27-07.1-32. Defendant in criminal action waiving jury trial may be tried by court. If a defendant in a criminal action in a county court waives a trial by jury, the defendant may be tried by the court without a jury. The court shall give prior notice of the trial to the state’s attorney of the county.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The right to be tried by one’s peers is fundamental to the American system of criminal justice; ‘an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compl[ia]nt, biased, or eccentric judge.’ ” [quoting from Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 149 , 88 S.Ct. 1444, 1451 ( 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968)) ] State v. Kranz, 353 N.W.2d 748, 751 (N.D.1984).”
2 later decisions 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.