State v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2020 · most notably Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017), State v. Loa (1996)
36 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 Barker v. Wingo · Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Investment Co. · Baehr v. Lewin · Powell v. Nevada · Pele Defense Fund v. Paty
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rule 48. DISMISSAL. (a) By prosecutor. The prosecutor may by leave of court file a dismissal of a charge and the prosecution shall thereupon terminate. Such a dismissal may not be filed during the trial without the consent of the defendant. (b) By court. Except in the case of traffic offenses that are not punishable by imprisonment, the court shall, on motion of the defendant, dismiss the charge, with or without prejudice in its discretion, if trial is not commenced within 6 months: (1) from the date of arrest if bail is set or from the filing of the charge, whichever is sooner, on any offense based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode for which the arrest or charge was made; or (2) from the date of re-arrest or re-filing of the charge, in cases where an initial charge was dismissed upon motion of the defendant; or (3) from the date of mistrial, order granting a new trial or remand, in cases where such events require a new trial. Clauses (b)(1) and (b)(2) shall not be applicable to any offense for which the arrest was made or the charge was filed prior to the effective date of the rule.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Visintin · State v. Chang“[t]he test on appeal is not whether guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trier of fact.... ‘Substantial evidence’ as to every material element of the offense charged is credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a [person] of reasonable caution to support a conclusion. And [the] trier of fact ... is free to make all reasonable and rationale inferences under the facts in evidence, including circumstantial evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brantley · State v. Hanapi“A trial court’s findings of fact (FOFs) in deciding an HRPP 48(b) motion to dismiss are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. An FOF is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. However, whether those facts fall within HRPP 48(b)’s exclusionary provisions is a question of law, the determination of which is freely reviewable pursuant to the “right/wrong” test.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Samonte · State v. Gabalis
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.