Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 817 SW2D 28 - State v. Parton

State v. Parton’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
3
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 2016

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

50199120002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Chapman v. State of California · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · State v. Cabbage · State v. Grace

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.

  1. “It is clear in this state that late night court sessions should be scheduled “only when unusual circumstances require it.” McMullin, 801 S.W.2d at 832. Regard less of whether counsel or any juror objects, the late night sessions should be avoided; and they must be justified because of unusual circumstances. If the requisite unusual circumstances do exist and late night sessions are scheduled because of necessity, good practice would be to also let the record affirmatively reflect that all counsel and all jurors expressly agree. But the threshold question which must always be determined by the court is whether the circumstances justify the unusual session.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The determination by a trial judge of whether he should disqualify himself from sitting in a case is a matter of sound discretion with the court. Wiseman v. Spaulding, 573 S.W.2d 490 (Tenn.App.1978). We have scrutinized this record thoroughly. There is no evidence that the trial judge had any personal bias or prejudice against [this defendant]. No evidence exists that the court violated any provisions of Canon 3. The trial judge was well within his discretion to refuse to recuse himself.”
    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.