Hentz v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably 592 So. 2d 114 - Hansen v. State (1991), 860 So. 2d 704 - Howell v. State (2003)
40 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 Hill v. State · 435 So. 2d 645 - Leatherwood v. State · 441 So. 2d 846 - Irving v. State · 436 So. 2d 1381 - Morris v. State · 460 So. 2d 126 - Barnes 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An important question in discovery, such as involved here, is who is going to determine whether or not tapes or written instruments are exculpatory or important to the defense, if counsel is unable to see, hear, or know what is contained therein? Is the State attorney the only person who will make that determination? We think not. The Court now declares that as a matter of good practice and sound judgment in the trial of criminal cases, prosecuting attorneys should make available to attorneys for defendants all such material in their files and let the defense attorneys determine whether or not the material is useful in the defense of the case. We direct the attention of trial judges to this problem and suggest that they diligently implement this suggestion in order to dispense with costly errors, which might cause reversal of the case. Barnes v. State, 460 So.2d 126 (Miss. 1984); Harris v. State, 446 So.2d 585 (Miss. 1984); Morris v. State, 436 So.2d 1381 (Miss. 1983).”
10 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Mitchell v. State · Foster v. State“It is elementary law that one who steals property cannot be convicted of receiving, concealing or aiding in concealing the property stolen.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]here a defendant is charged with receiving stolen goods, and the evidence shows that he is guilty of the larceny of the goods in question, he cannot be convicted of the offense with which he is charged.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.