State v. DiModica’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably State v. Czachor (1980), State v. Sullivan (1964)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 45 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 Jencks v. United States · Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v. United States · United States v. Rose · United States v. Rogers · State v. Hunt
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Ibid. (quoting State v. Zellers, 7 N.J.L. 220, 226 (Sup.Ct.1824)).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) To prevent the escape of those whose indictment may be contemplated; (2) to insure the utmost freedom to the grand jury in its deliberations, and to prevent persons subject to indictment or their friends from importuning the grand jurors; (3) to prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with the witnesses who may testify before grand jury and later appear at the trial of those indicted by it; (4) to encourage free and untrammeled disclosures by persons who have information with respect to the commission of crimes; (5) to protect innocent accused who is exonerated from disclosure of the fact that he has been under investigation, and from the expense of standing trial where there was no probability of guilt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The grand jury’s function as a constitutional safeguard is only to determine whether the evidence placed before it is sufficient to warrant the return of an indictment, so that persons may be protected from being forced to stand trial on unfounded criminal charges. Whether a record is kept of the testimony produced at the grand jury proceeding can have no bearing on the fulfillment of this function, and hence the absence of such a record does not affect the defendant’s constitutional right.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Levesque
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.