Bruce v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 2022
11 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 Chapman v. State of California · Ohio v. Roberts · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · Lilly v. Virginia · Medina v. California
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that a defendant implicitly waives the IAD’s time limits where he or his counsel agrees to a trial date outside those limits”); People v. Jones, 197 Mich.App. 76 , 495 N.W.2d 159, 160 (1992) (finding a waiver if the prisoner “either expressly or impliedly, agrees or requests to be treated in a manner contrary to the terms of the IAD”); Drescher v. Super. Ct., 218 Cal.App.3d 1140, 1148 , 267 Cal.Rptr. 661 (1990) (finding a waiver if there is a”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Slaughter“even when prejudicial error is committed, it will usually be cured by the trial judge's instruction to the jury to disregard the remarks.”). . Appendix to Appellant's Op. Br. at 20. . Id. . There is no per se rule that the use of the word”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Derose v. State
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.