Ostwald v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2015
12 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 Mapp v. Ohio · Stovall v. Denno · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · Linkletter v. Walker · Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] ruling may be prospective only and it may apply to the invalidity of statutes as well as to the effect of a decision overturning long-established common law rules; the constitution neither prohibits nor requires retrospective effect and the federal Constitution has no voice upon the subject; and, the accepted rule today is that in appropriate cases in the interests of justice, a court may make its decision prospective.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Linkletter v. Walker, 1965, 381 U.S. 618 , 85 S.Ct. 1731 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 , (footnote 10 omitted) brought to a climax and explained the entire field of retroactivity, bringing into focus the actuality and practicality of prospective rather than retroactive application, of court decisions declaring a fundamental phase of the criminal law unconstitutional, in any sphere. It laid to rest as out of tune with the times the concept of Norton v. Shelby County, supra [1886, 118 U.S. 425 , 6 S.Ct. 1121 , 30 L.Ed. 178 ]. It settled most matters of controversy and concluded that, with respect to reaching a determination of whether a decision should be retrospective or prospective: there is no distinction drawn between civil and criminal litigation; a ruling may be prospective only and it may apply to the invalidity of statutes (footnote 11 omitted) as well as to the effect of a decision overturning long-established common law rules; the constitution neither prohibits nor requires retrospective effect and the federal Constitution has no voice upon the subject; and, the accepted rule today is that in appropriate cases in the interests of justice, a court may make its decision prospective.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The decision will involve the status of a number of prisoners convicted and presently serving sentences as convicts under that section and could have other far-reaching effects on others as will be developed later in this opinion. To save delay and the possibility of a multiplicity of suits by way of habeas corpus actions and post-conviction proceedings as well as coram nobis which could result in a conflict of rulings in the several judicial districts of the state, we deem it of public interest to take jurisdiction for prompt and uniform application and disposition of the question as it may arise in the future and to settle the concern of those immediately affected. The post-conviction proceeding raised a question which has become moot and upon the suggestion of appellant-defendant, the appeal should be dismissed for that reason, but the appeal record can be used to assist in touching a question of landmark proportions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mares
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.