Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 41 N.J. 422 - State v. Dolce

State v. Dolce’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
6
states following
February 2007
most recently cited

42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 2007 · most notably State v. Burnett (1964), State v. Talbot (1976)

42 state decisions

17019641970198019902000decided

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 Sorrells v. United States · Sherman v. United States · Rodriguez v. New York · Lopez v. United States · Marshall 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““A witness has a privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of a person who has furnished information purporting to disclose a violation of a provision of the laws of this State or of the United States to a representative 'of the State or the United States or a governmental division thereof, charged with the duty of enforcing that provision, and evidence thereof is inadmissible, unless the judge finds that (a) the identity of the person furnishing the information has already been otherwise disclosed or (b) disclosure of his identity is essential to assure a fair determination of the issues.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The public interest to be served by preserving the free flow of information of criminal activities, and by employing investigative agents who have, or acquire by deception or otherwise, access to persons engaged in such activities, should not be thwarted unless a showing is made that a defense such as entrapment is presented in good faith, with some reasonable factual support, and that the informer is a material witness necessary to the fair determination of the defense. If the rule were otherwise, a defendant by the mere naked allegation that he intended to rely on the defense could force the State to reveal the name and whereabouts of the informer and, on its refusal to do so, gain dismissal of the prosecution.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In such situation although the violation of the criminal law is not denied, 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 45(1), p. 137 (1961), conviction of the defendant cannot be had because the methods employed by the enforcement officials are unconscionable and contrary to public policy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.