Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 641 SW2D 890 - State v. Campbell

State v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2017

12 state decisions

501982199020002010decided

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 Tibbs v. Florida · United States v. Scott · Hitchcock v. United States · O'Neal v. United States · United States v. Johnson

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

  1. “We are of the opinion that the agreement could be valid only as long as the warrant and its ensuing and related prosecution were valid. In the general sessions court the Defendant and State proceeded to trial on the faulty charging instrument. The predicate for such an “agreement” is a valid warrant as the charging instrument. If that warrant is void, the agreement is invalidated along with it. At that point, all that remains is the Defendant’s liability for his offense and the decision of the State as to how to prosecute him. As noted in the dissenting opinion, it was the decision of the Defendant to seek voidance of the warrant, and without the warrant, there was nothing on which to base a Rule 5 waiver. The Defendant would have the right to waive indictment if he were reprosecu-ted upon a new warrant; but the State did not offer him that opportunity. (Emphasis added)”
    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.