State v. Kruelski’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2017
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 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 United States v. Marion · Doggett v. United States · United States v. Ewell · Toussie v. United States · Lewis v. United States
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A prosecution is commenced either when an indictment is found [or an information filed] or when a warrant or other process is issued, provided that such warrant or process is executed without unreasonable delay.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Swebilius“The issuance of an arrest warrant is sufficient `prosecution' to satisfy the statute of limitations only if the warrant is executed with due diligence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“that [the] one day delay was not an unreasonable delay vitiating the tolling of the statute of limitations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Swebilius
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.