Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 64 Haw. 395 - State v. Marzo

State v. Marzo’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
states following
March 2009
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2009 · most notably State v. Estrada (1987), State v. Matafeo (1990)

27 state decisions

150198219902000decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Scott · School Board of Richmond v. State Board of Education · State v. Kahinu · State v. Pulawa

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

  1. “(8) Sanctions. (i) If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule or any order issued pursuant thereto, the court may order such party to permit the discovery, grant a continuance, or it may enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “An appeal may be taken by and on behalf of the State from the district or circuit courts to the supreme court, subject to chapter 602, in all criminal cases, in the following instances: (1) From an order or judgment quashing, setting aside, or sustaining a motion to dismiss, any indictment or information or any count thereof; (2) From an order or judgment, sustaining a special plea in bar, or dismissing the case where the defendant has not been put in jeopardy ....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[j]urisdiction of this court is invoked by HRS § 641-13(2) and not [HRS] § 641-13(1) as the government urges. Hence, this court is without jurisdiction if the dismissal has put defendant in jeopardy. We hold that, under the circumstances of the case, where defendant moved for and obtained a dismissal immediately after the jury was sworn, preventing a trial to determine his guilt or innocence, no jeopardy attaches.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.