State v. Pugh’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 2020
16 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 Sciortino v. Zampano · United States v. Motte
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) A charge of felony shall be dismissed if the accused is not accorded a preliminary hearing within the time required by sections 2945.71 and 2945.72 of the Revised Code.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(A) A charge of felony shall be dismissed if the accused is not accorded a preliminary hearing within the time required by sections 2945.71 and 2945.72 of the Revised Code. "(D) When a charge of felony is dismissed pursuant to division (A) of this section, such dismissal has the same effect as a nolle prose-qui. "The language of R.C. 2945.73(A) is clear. It mandates that charges against a defendant denied a timely preliminary hearing be dismissed. It is not necessary to read that mandate out of statute in order to give effect to R.C. 2945.73(D). The latter provision tempers the effect of the former one, but it does not negate it. Read in pari materia, R.C. 2945.73(A) and (D) allow the prosecution to proceed against a defendant after he has been denied a timely preliminary hearing but only if it does so by reinstating proceedings after the initial charges against him have been dismissed. (Such a reading of the two statutes preserves the legislative requirement that charges be dismissed and also gives effect to the legislative intent to discourage prolonged pre-trial incarceration and to balance the defendant's right to speedy justice against the state's interest in obtaining convictiona”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.