State v. Hersch’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably State v. Olander (1998), State v. Hirsch (1994)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 32 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 Toussie v. United States · Texas v. Louisiana · United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. · Linkletter v. Walker · United States v. Apfelbaum
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Statutory language must be construed as a whole to determine the legislative intent. ... In ascertaining the legislative intent, we first look to the statutory language. ... Statutory language must be given its plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning.... We are also guided by the principle that statutes of limitation are to be construed liberally in favor of the accused and against the prosecution.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Nastrom · State v. Thill““Prosecution for felony other than murder within three years. — An information for any felony other than murder must be filed, or an indictment must be found, within three years after its commission. Nothing in this section contained shall be construed to bar or prevent a person prosecuted for murder from being found guilty of manslaughter and punished accordingly.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dimmler · State v. Thill““2. ‘Deception’ means: “a. Creating or reinforcing a false impression as to fact, law, status, value, intention, or other state of mind; ... but deception as to a person’s intention to perform a promise may not be inferred from the fact alone that the person did not substantially perform the promise unless it is part of a continuing scheme to defraud; or [[Image here]] “g. Any other scheme to defraud_””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Trosen
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.