Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 N.M. 365 - State v. Vaughn

State v. Vaughn’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
4
states following
September 2023
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 67 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Sanders v. Cox (1964), Pearce v. Cox (1965)

8 federal appellate · 67 state decisions

3801964197019801990200020102020decided

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 · Gideon v. Wainwright · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Carnley v. Cochran · Hamilton v. Alabama

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

  1. “' “The-absence of either a preliminary examination or. its intelligent waiver * * * may jjg -caiied to-the atten-tion of the Court at any time prior to, arraignment, by. plea in abatement or. in any other appropriate manner, State v. Rogers, 31 N.M. 485 , 247 P. 828 ; State ex rel. Hanagan v. Armijo, supra ( 72 N.M. 50 , 380 P.2d 196 ) * * * When violation of a constitutional right in the proceedings before the magistrate is brought to the attention of the trial court and found to exist, the accused’s right and the court’s duty is to abate the information until there has been a proper preliminary examination, and remand the accused to the magistrate for such examination unless it be competently waived. * * * ””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It is no longer open to question that the Federal Constitution stands as a jurisdictional bar to a valid conviction and sentence of an indigent accused who is denied the right to representation by counsel at any critical stage of a criminal proceeding. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 , 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 , 84 A.L.R. 527 . A preliminary examination may be such a critical stage, Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 , 82 S.Ct. 157 , 7 L.Ed.2d 114 ; White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59 , 83 S.Ct. 1050 , 10 L.Ed.2d 193 . Indeed, Art. II, Sec. 14 of the New Mexico Constitution provides that no person shall be held to answer to a felony information "without having had a preliminary examination before an examining magistrate, or having waived such preliminary examination."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.