Cunningham v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently November 2000 · most notably Matson v. State (1991), Rheuark v. Shaw (1980)
6 federal appellate · 41 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Jackson v. Denno · Rodriquez v. United States · First National City Bank v. Banco Nacional de Cuba · United States v. Cifarelli
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... where nothing is developed in a trial to suggest that investigation by the grand jury could have ascertained from whom a defendant received the stolen properly, there is a prima facie showing that the name of the party from whom the defendant received the property was unknown to the grand jury, thereby supporting such averment in the indictment.[ 4 ] The question of variance is not presented. This is especially true where the whole case shows that if the grand jury had been in possession of all the evidence developed on the trial it still could not have determined from whom the defendant received the stolen property. Id., at 911 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Polk 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.