Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 655 P2D 669 - State v. Studham

State v. Studham’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
August 2012
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2012

8 state decisions

401982199020002010decided

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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · Singer v. United States · United States v. Jamar · Corbett v. Bordenkircher

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

  1. “an accused is guaranteed a right [to] trial by jury, neither the state nor the federal constitution guarantees him a right to”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “clearly demonstrate[ ] an invasion of due process,”
    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.