State v. Andrews’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably State v. Rhines (1996), State v. Shaw (2005)
33 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 Solem v. Helm · United States v. S. Lawrence Kahn, Arthur B. Sachs and M. Prial Curran · United States v. Rogers · State v. Reiman · State v. Peck
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“23A-11-2. (Rule 14) Relief from prejudicial joinder of offenses or defendants. If it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sabers · State v. Shape“On appeal, we first determine whether the sentence `shocks the conscience' or is so disproportionate to the crime that it activates the Eighth Amendment `within and without jurisdiction' proportionality tests....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Bult v. Leapley · State v. Lykken“Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information, if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses. Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately, and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count. (Emphasis added).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Johnson · State v. Johnson
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.