State v. Provard’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 2018
9 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 Terry v. Ohio · State v. Kaluna · State v. Goudy · State v. Anderson · State v. Kelsey
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f the defendant is released outright some time after arrest but thereafter is charged with the same offense for which the defendant was arrested and held to answer, the time runs from the date of the filing of the charge. Were it otherwise, the time for trial would begin running because of the action of the police ... even though the prosecutor later concluded he had insufficient evidence to file a charge and caused the outright release of the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Cenido · State v. Visintin“Under the objective view, the focus of inquiry is not on the predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime charged, but rather is on the conduct of the law enforcement officials... . .... The language of the section allows for a stricdy objective inquiry into the entrapment issue. The main concern is whether the conduct of the police or other law enforcement officials was so extreme that it created a substantial risk that persons not ready to commit the offense alleged would be persuaded or induced to commit it. The focus is on the police conduct and its probable effect on a ‘reasonable person.’ No attention is directed toward the state of mind of the particular defendant in determining the entrapment issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Nakamura“Standard 12-2.2. When time commences to run The time for trial should commence running, without demand by the defendant, as follows: (a) from the date the charge is filed, except that if the defendant has been continuously held in custody or on bail or recognizance until that date to answer for the crime or a crime based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode, then the time for trial should commence running from the date the defendant was held to answer[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Visintin
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.