State v. Jeske’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 2022
8 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 Peterson v. State · Coffey v. State · Stobaugh v. State · Yearty v. State · State v. Clouatre
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Excluded Periods. The following periods shall be excluded in computing the time for trial: (1) The period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to motions to dismiss or suppress, examinations and hearings on competency, the period during which the defendant is incompetent to stand trial, interlocutory appeals, and trial of other charges. No pre-trial motion shall be held under advisement for more than 30 days and any time longer than 30 days shall not be considered as an excluded period.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Drake v. State“When defense counsel has requested or consented to a continuance, a judge setting the date for the defendant’s trial is entitled to rely upon the fact that [Criminal Rule 45] is tolled during that continuance, at least until the judge is affirmatively apprised of the defendant’s objection to the continuance. Once it is clear that the defendant has not consented and will not consent to the continuance, Rule 45(d)(2) directs the trial judge to restart the Rule 45 clock.[ 6 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Baker v. State“[We reject] Snyder's contention ... that the waiver of [Rule 45] was not legally effective since it was entered by counsel in his absence. ... We are of the view that our decisions [requiring the person-all waiver of fundamental constitutional rights are inapplicable to the Criminal Rule 45(d)(1) excluded period issue raised herein.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wardlow 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.