Ellis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

cited by 37 later decisions

states following

August 2016

most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably 671 So. 2d 647 - Peterson v. State (1996), 574 So. 2d 671 - Handley v. State (1990)

37 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 Federal Trade Commission v. Textile & Apparel Group · 445 So. 2d 798 - Williams v. State · Shelby v. State · Robinson v. State · Dalgo v. State

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

“It is well settled in this state ... that a change in the indictment is permissible if it does not materially alter facts which are the essence of the offense on the face of the indictment as it originally stood or materially alter a defense to the indictment as it originally stood so as to prejudice the defendant's case.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Greenlee v. State · Nathan v. State
“No request for a continuance was made. This court has held that where a defendant does not ask for a continuance when an indictment is amended he cannot later object that he was surprized and prejudiced in this defense. ( Peebles v. State, 55 Miss. 434 (1877); Sanders v. State, 219 So.2d 913 (Miss. 1969); cert. denied 396 U.S. 913 , 90 S.Ct. 228 , 24 L.Ed.2d 188 ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Nathan v. State
“[i]t [is] not necessary for the State to specify in the indictment which section of the habitual criminal statute they were proceeding under.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 907 So. 2d 985 - Frazier v. State

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.