State v. Strong’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently May 2005 · most notably State v. Lang (1974), State v. Johnson (1976)
50 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 Hodges v. United States · State v. Shawley · State v. Moore · State v. Tyson · State v. Coleman
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Defendant first contends that the magistrate court lost jurisdiction because of seven continuances from November 28, 1969, to April 6, 1970. While it is true our Rule 23.06, V.A.M.R., provides continuation of a preliminary hearing is not to exceed ten days at one time, the failure of adhere to this rule did not oust the magistrate court of its jurisdiction. In State v. Caffey, Mo., 438 S.W.2d 167 , we held that a continuation of a preliminary hearing over an eleven month period was a procedural irregularity and did not divest the magistrate court or the circuit court of jurisdiction over the subject matter.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Canania““. . . We do not weigh the evidence to determine whether the charge has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt; that is a function of the [trier of facts], . . . The scope of our review extends only to a determination of whether there is sufficient substantial evidence to support the verdict [finding] . .” State v. Strong, supra, 484 S.W.2d at 661 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In testing the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal prosecution by a motion for a judgment of acquittal, the facts and evidence and the favorable inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom must be considered in the light most favorable to the state and all evidence and inferences to the contrary must be disregarded.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Waller
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.