State v. Molnar’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently November 2009 · most notably United States v. Bogart (1986), State v. Sugar (1985)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 69 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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Sandstrom v. Montana · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Sherman v. United States · Romano v. United States
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 procedural provisions of the code shall govern, insofar as they are justly applicable and their application does not introduce confusion or delay; (2) The court, with the consent of the defendant, may impose sentence under the provisions of the code applicable to the offense and the offender. (3) The court shall, if the offense committed is no longer an offense under the provisions of the code, dismiss such prosecution.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In articulating [the entrapment doctrine], our Court has adopted two standards respecting entrapment. The traditional or subjective standard defines entrapment as law enforcement conduct which implants in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged crime, and hence induces its commission... . Under this traditional formulation, the defense of entrapment is limited to those defendants who were not predisposed to commit the crime induced by government actions. In recent years, however, this Court has fashioned a second, independent standard for assessing entrapment. It recognizes that when official conduct inducing crime is so egregious as to impugn the integrity of a court that permits a conviction, the predisposition of the defendant becomes irrelevant. .. . This Court recently explained in Talbot [ State v. Talbot, 71 N.J. 160, 167-68 , 364 A.2d 9, 13 (1976)]: [A]s the part played by the State in the criminal activity increases, the importance of the factor of defendant's criminal intent decreases, until finally a point may be reached where the methods [employed] by the state to obtain a conviction cannot be countenanced, even though a defendant's predisposition is shown. Whether the police activity has overstepped the bounds of permissible conduct is a question to be decided by the trial court rather than the jury.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A rule of procedure may have an impact upon the substantive result and be no less a rule of procedure on that account.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.