State v. Nave’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2005 · most notably Smith v. Murray (1986), Davis v. Oklahoma (1986)
2 federal appellate · 60 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 Lockett v. Ohio · Wainwright v. Witt · Newlon v. Missouri · Grigsby v. Mabry · State v. Newlon
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he granting or denial of a motion for continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Jordan, 646 S.W.2d 747, 753 (Mo. banc 1983). A very strong showing is required to prove trial court abuse of discretion in denial of a motion for continuance, State v. Cuckovich, 485 S.W.2d 16, 21 (Mo. banc 1972), and the party requesting the continuance bears the burden of showing prejudice resulted by such denial. State v. Haggard, 619 S.W.2d 44, 46 (Mo. banc 1981), cert. dismissed, 455 U.S. 930 , 102 S.Ct. 1297 , 71 L.Ed.2d 474 (1982), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 459 U.S. 1192 , 103 S.Ct. 1171 , 75 L.Ed.2d 423 (1983).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Taylor · State v. Johnson“Nave was not intoxicated, was alert, and spoke clearly.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Nave v. Delo · Nave v. Delo“Several states hold that the general rule that allegations of court error not assigned in a motion for new trial are not preserved for appellate review, codified in Missouri Rule 29.11(d) with exceptions not applicable here, is inapplicable in death penalty cases. Even though the assignment of error has been improperly preserved, we review, ex gratia, the point relied on for plain error . . . to determine if manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice resulted from the denial of Nave's request for continuance”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. Murray
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.