Weddington v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably 137 Ill. 2d 500 - People v. Thomas (1990), United States v. Weiss (1991)
2 federal appellate · 34 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 Chapman v. State of California · Berger v. United States · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Drew v. United States
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Joinder of Offenses. Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or information in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both, are of the same or similar character or are basec on the same act or transaction or on 2 or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Caldwell v. State“To raise the issue of race is to draw the jury’s attention to a characteristic that the Constitution generally commands us to ignore. Even a reference that is not derogatory may carry impermissible connotations, or may trigger prejudiced responses in the listeners that the speaker might neither have predicted nor intended.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Varner“the right to a fair trial that is free of improper racial implications is so basic to the federal Constitution that an infringement upon that right can never be treated as harmless error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Monday
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.