Crane v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Rousseau v. State (1993), Cantu v. State (1992)
2 federal appellate · 74 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 Simmons v. United States · Wainwright v. Witt · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Palmer v. Hoffman · Kissinger v. Halperin
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the person who gives the information to the peace officer must be credible; (2) the offense must be a felony; (3) the offender must be about to escape; and (4) there must be no time to procure a warrant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Laca v. State · Nelson v. State“(1) suppression of the evidence by the prosecution after a request by the defense; (2) the evidences’ favorable character for the defense; and (3) the materiality of the evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. McGee v. State · Ladner v. State“8) That both prosecutors considered the apparent conflicts within a questionnaire supplied to [the venirewoman] by the Court. 9) That both prosecutors considered Margie Foster Burford to have been vacillating in her answers to questions posed by the Court, defense and State. * * * * * ) That Assistant District Attorney [name omitted] formed the opinion that [the venirewoman] may have been more sympathetic to the defendant than other prospective venirepersons because of her business contact with drug abusers. 12) That Assistant District Attorney [name omitted] formed the opinion that [the venirewoman] would hold the State to a higher burden of proof than required by law. 13) That Assistant District Attorney [name omitted] formed the opinion that [the venirewoman] had a bias against the State in a key issue of its case, i.e. convictions upon the testimony of a single witness. % # * * s}: ) That the State did not exclude all members of the black race from the jury, there being two jurors who were black and an alternate juror who was black. 16) That the State exercised its peremptory challenge against [the venirewoman] based upon the totality of her answers given during voir dire, on her pre-voir dire questionnaire and from her demean- or during voir dire examination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rousseau 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.