Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 51 SW3D 18 - State v. Frances

State v. Frances’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
January 2006
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Parkhurst · Hagan v. State · State v. Richardson · State v. Gilmore · State v. Stringer

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

  1. “The [Sjtate forgets that a transcript of the opening statement and closing argument will not be part of the documents reflecting this conviction. While a discerning reader might assume that counts 4 and 6 contain typographical errors, there remains confusion because of the normal assumption that the charges express exactly what the [Sjtate intended to charge. We cannot say that the [Sjtate’s view is the only reasonable construction. Second, since one of the reasons for accuracy and sufficiency in pleadings is to avoid conflict with provisions against double jeopardy, we find it unacceptable to simply ignore the appearance that the defendant’s double jeopardy rights have been violated.”
    1 later decision 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.