State v. Pulawa’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably State v. Estrada (1987), State v. Melear (1981)
2 federal appellate · 41 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 Costello v. United States · Boesche v. Udall · City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey · Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Boston & Maine Railroad · United States v. J. Joseph Kennedy, United States of America v. Robert J. Myers, United States of America v. Lawrence F. Carlson
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“clearly infringe[d] upon the jury's decision-making function.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coronel v. Oku · State v. Sua“[T]he grand jury need not be advised of all matters bearing upon the credibility of potential witnesses. Dismissal of an indictment is required only in flagrant cases in which the grand jury has been overreached or deceived in some significant way, as where perjured testimony has knowingly been presented.... Although deliberate introduction of perjured testimony is perhaps the most flagrant example of misconduct, other prosecutorial behavior, even if unintentional, can also cause improper influence and usurpation of the grand jury’s role.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Chong · State v. Arroyo“The petitioner in Costello had urged that the Court should exercise its power to supervise the administration of justice in federal courts and establish a rule permitting defendants to challenge indictments on the ground that they are not supported by adequate or competent evidence. The Court responded to this contention that '[n]o persuasive reasons are advanced for establishing such a rule. It would run counter to the whole history of the grand juty institution, in which laymen conduct their inquiries unfettered by technical rules. Neither justice nor the concept of a fair trial requires such a change. In a trial on the merits, defendants are entitled to a strict observance of all the rules designed to bring about a fair verdict. Defendants are not entitled, however, to a rule which would result in interminable delay but add nothing to the assurance of a fair trial.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Chong
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.