State v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2018
13 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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gault · McKeiver v. Pennsylvania · Breed v. Jones · Wood v. Strickland
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At the end of any hearing or within a reasonable time thereafter, a Master shall enter the order in writing which shall announce the result and provide an explanation therefor. Every written order by a Master shall inform all parties that, as provided in this section, there is an absolute right to a review de novo by a Judge and that in the absence of a request within 15 days for de novo review, the written order of a Master shall become enforceable by any legal means. Any party may obtain a review de novo of any Master’s written order by a Judge by filing with the Court a written request therefor within 15 days from the date of a Master’s written order....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Simply stated, a master has no independent power of adjudication. In this respect a master’s authority is comparable to that of a court-appointed referee whose limited role has been authoritatively described: “Without confirmation and adoption by the court, the acts of the referee have no force or validity whatever, and nothing can originate before him and nothing can terminate with or by his decision, the entire proceeding being an exercise of judicial power by the court.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The proceedings against a child are not criminal in concept or in practice. Indeed, the child is not even charged with a ‘crime’ no matter what the conduct. See 10 Del.C. § [1002]. In the Family Court the charge is a general one of ‘delinquency.’ § 921(l)(2)a_ State policy in a proceeding against a child in the Family Court is to make it entirely a part of the Court’s ‘civil jurisdiction,’ § 921._”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hughes v. State
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.