Mallott v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2022 · most notably Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980), People v. Holt (1997)
76 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Irvin v. Dowd · Swain v. State of Alabama · Sheppard v. Maxwell
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A motion for change of venue or continuance shall be granted whenever it is determined that, because of the dissemination of potentially prejudicial material, there is a substantial likelihood that, in the absence of such relief, a fair trial by an impartial jury cannot be had.... A showing of actual prejudice shall not be required.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Cheely v. State · Jerrel v. State“Whether pretrial publicity is so prejudicial and so pervasive that no [impartial] jury could be selected to try a particular case in a particular locale is a determination that is exceedingly difficult to make prior to the questioning of potential jurors. Therefore almost without exception trial courts have been permitted the discretion to rely on voir dire rather than their own speculation as to the impact of pretrial publicity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Alexander v. State · West v. State“"[a] prospective juror who has been exposed to and remembers reports of highly significant information, such as the existence or contents of a confession, or other incriminating matters that may be inadmissible in evidence, or substantial amounts of inflammatory material, shall be subject to challenge for cause without regard to the prospective juror's testimony as to state of mind.[ 19 ]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.