State v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2007 · most notably State v. Reichert (1993), State v. White (1988)
26 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 · United States v. Hensley · United States v. Werner · State v. Johnson · In Re the Marriage of Faulkner
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All offenses that are of the same or similar character or based on two or more acts that are part of the same transaction or on two or more acts or transactions that are connected or that constitute parts of a common scheme or plan may be charged in the same indictment or information in separate counts.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wolford · State v. Meder“When a defendant is charged with more than one offense in the same indictment or information, the offenses shall be tried jointly unless the court orders an offense to be tried separately only if: (a) A party files a written motion requesting a separate trial of the offense; (b) A party makes a particularized showing of substantial prejudice if the offense is not tried separately; and (c) The court finds the existence of a bias or discrimination against the party that requires a separate trial of the offense.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Davis · State v. Holmes““1. Notwithstanding Missouri supreme court rule 24.07, whenever two or more offenses are jointly charged in an indictment or information, the court shall order both or all offenses to be tried together. 2. If it appears that a defendant or the state is substantially prejudiced by a joinder of the offenses for trial, upon a written motion of the defendant or the state and upon a particularized showing of substantial prejudice, the court may-grant a severance of offenses or provide whatever relief justice requires. For purposes of this section, ‘substantial prejudice’ shall mean a bias or discrimination against the defendant or the state which is actually existing or real and not one which is merely imaginary, illusion-ary or nominal. [[Image here]]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Johnson
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.