State v. Buford’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently January 2002 · most notably State v. Shaw (1982), State v. McCrary (1981)
2 federal appellate · 30 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 United States v. Wade · Duren v. Missouri · United States v. Ash · Lee v. Missouri · 4 Cal. 3d 273 - People v. Lawrence
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Notwithstanding Missouri supreme court rule 24.07 [which deals with severance for trial] 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 infractions, or any combination thereof, are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.” Article V, § 5 of the Constitution of Mo. invests the Supreme Court with power to establish rules”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bechhold“[T]o avoid the emasculation of the evi-dentiary rule, the joinder rule must be construed so that joinder is permitted only when proof or evidence of the commission of one crime must be necessary to the proof of the commission of the other crime. State v. Prier, supra [ 561 S.W.2d 437 ] at 441-42, and State v. Jackson, 566 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Mo.App.1978).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wood“were not shown to be motivated by a common scheme or plan, and could not be described as part of the same transaction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McCrary
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.