Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 430 A.2d 756 - State v. Cianci

State v. Cianci’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
May 2017
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably State v. Bettencourt (1999), State v. Tempest (1995)

33 state decisions

1201981199020002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Griffin v. California · United States v. Hale · Infelice v. United States · Associated Food Retailers of Greater Chicago, Inc. v. Jewel Tea Co.

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.

  1. ““Instructions. — At the close of the evidence or at such earlier time during the trial as the court reasonably directs, any party may file written requests that the court instruct the jury on the law as set forth in the request. * * * No party may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom unless the party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which the party objects and the grounds of the party’s objection.” (Emphasis added.).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(a) Discovery by Defendant. Upon written request by a defendant, the attorney for the State shall permit the defendant to inspect or listen to and copy or photograph any of the following items within the possession, custody, or control of the State, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the attorney for the State:”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““When a party seeks to introduce a prior inconsistent statement, the trial justice in the first instance must determine whether a statement is in fact inconsistent with the witness’s testimony * * * and whether the inconsistency is in any way material to the issues involved in the case.” (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision 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.