555 So. 2d 1039 - Avery v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

cited by 22 later decisions

states following

March 2018

most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2018

1 federal appellate · 20 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 Michigan v. Long · Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · 437 So. 2d 19 - Box v. State · 278 So. 2d 384 - Glass v. State · 548 So. 2d 389 - Leatherwood v. State

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“The preliminary hearing shall be heard on the set date, unless it is waived in writing or in open court and upon the advice of counsel. If preliminary hearing is waived by the defendant, the judicial officer shall bind the defendant over to the next grand jury.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
e.g. 612 So. 2d 1120 - Mayfield v. State · 595 So. 2d 418 - Esparaza v. State
“courts must make every reasonable effort to comply with statutory method of drawing, selecting and serving jurors.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Thomas v. State · Gathings v. State
“... setting bond and establishing probable cause are not the only purposes of a preliminary hearing. Rule 1.07 provides that witnesses produced by the prosecution at the preliminary hearing shall be examined on oath `in the presence of the defendant.' The Rule further provides that `the defendant may cross-examine the witnesses against him.' We have recently recognized that one of the primary purposes of a preliminary hearing is `to permit the defendant to confront his accusers.' Shook v. State, 552 So.2d 841, 850 (Miss. 1989). Herring v. State, 522 So.2d 745, 751 (Miss. 1988) recognizes the point as well.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 599 So. 2d 930 - Rogers v. State · 595 So. 2d 418 - Esparaza 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.