Rutherford v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Cooksey v. State (1974), Lauderdale v. State (1976)
44 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 · Katz v. United States · Johnson v. Zerbst · Gideon v. Wainwright · Bruton v. United States
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[where the major purpose of [the rule] is to overcome an aspect of the criminal trial which substantially impairs its truth-finding function,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Smart v. State · State v. Glass“[W]e feel it is too much to expect of human nature that a defendant must demand a speedy trial to receive one when he has no assurance as to the outcome of trial. The uncertainty as to the verdict can bring indecision to the innocent as well as the guilty. While trial should vindicate the innocent, such a defendant may nevertheless be apprehensive about the outcome, for even his innocence has not prevented him from reaching the trial stage of the criminal process. Thus, the innocent defendant is presented with two unhappy alternatives: either not to demand trial, hoping the state will not prosecute, or to demand trial, hoping to vindicate himself in spite of his fear of being found guilty. Furthermore, under our system of criminal justice, it is the prosecution which initiates a case and which has the power of going forward with it. In the exercise of this power, it is the duty of the public prosecutor to observe the constitution. 486 P.2d at 950 . (footnote omitted)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Cooksey v. State · Andrew v. State“(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards; (b) the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards; and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive application of the new standards.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. McKenzie v. State · State v. Smart
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.