State v. Rawlinson’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
August 1998
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Hurtado v. People of the State of California · State v. Jenison · State v. Bianco
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This case came before the court for oral argument on October 9, 1986 pursuant to an order which directed the state and the defendant to appear before this court in order to argue the question whether the information presently pending on appeal should not have been dismissed as a result of the dismissal of a preceding information covering the same subject matter by reason of the repeated unexcused failure of the prosecution to make discovery in accordance with Rule 16 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. After examining the pre-briefing statements and supplemental memoranda filed by the parties and hearing the arguments of counsel, the following order may enter: 1. The court is of the opinion that the trial justice had ample authority to dismiss the original information with prejudice in light of the persistent failure of the prosecution to make discovery. However, the trial justice did not specifically state whether he was dismissing the information with prejudice or otherwise. Subsequent to the filing of the second information, the defendant moved to dismiss on a number of grounds. Although the trial justice denied the motion to dismiss, he did not specifically decide whether he had dismissed the first information with prejudice. 2. Consequently, this case shall be remanded to the trial justice for the purpose of deciding specifically the question of whether he dismissed the first information with prejudice or otherwise. Entered as an Order of this Court this ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. DiPrete
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.