Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 438 P2D 387 - Stewart v. State

Stewart v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
3
states following
December 1993
most recently cited

1 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 1993

1 district · 12 state decisions

601968197019801990decided

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 Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Cobbledick v. United States · Stack v. Boyle · Berman v. United States · Lomenzo v. WMCA, Inc.

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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(c) Nature and Contents — Defects of Form Do Not Invalidate. The indictment or the information shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It shall be signed by the prosecuting attorney. It need not contain a formal commencement, a formal conclusion or any other matter not necessary to such statement. Allegations made in one count may be incorporated by reference in another count. It may be alleged in a single count that the means by which the defendant committed the offense are unknown or that he committed it by one or more .specified means. The indictment or information shall state for each count the official or customary citation of the statute, rule, regulation or other provision of law which the defendant is alleged therein to have violated. Error in the citation or its omission shall not be ground - for dismissal of the indictment or information or for reversal of a conviction if the error or omission did not mislead the defendant to his prejudice. When an indictment is found the names of all witnesses examined before the grand jury must be inserted at the foot of the indictment, or endorsed thereon, before it is presented to the court. No indictment is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment or other proceedings thereon be affected by reason of a defect or imperfection in matter of form in the indictment, which does not tend to prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “An aggrieved party may petition this court for review of any order or de-cisión of the superior court, not otherwise appealable under Rule 6, in any action or proceeding, civil or criminal, as follows: ⅜ ⅝ * * ⅜ (d) Where such an order or decision involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and where an immediate and present review of such order or decision may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Concerning appellant’s contention that the indictment was insufficient because of its failure to specify that the Super S "Store was an entity capable of owning property, we hold that such an allegation is unnecessary. All that is required to be alleged in this regard in charging the crime of larceny in a building are facts showing that the property taken was not the property of the accused. 2”
    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.