Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 84 S.D. 391 - State v. Thwing

State v. Thwing’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
2
states following
January 2006
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2006

2 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

5019691970198019902000decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Patton v. United States · Singer v. United States · United States v. Agueci

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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate and shall extend to all cases at law without regard to the amount in controversy[.][§ 6]. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right ... to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. [§ 7].”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Cases required to be tried by a jury shall be so tried unless the defendant waives a jury trial in writing or orally on the record with the approval of the court and the consent of the prosecuting attorney.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A defendant’s only constitutional right concerning the method of trial is to an impartial trial by jury. We find no constitutional impediment to conditioning a waiver of this right on the consent of the prosecuting attorney and the trial judge when, if either refuses to consent, the result is simply that the defendant is subject to an impartial trial by jury — the very thing that the Constitution guarantees him [or her]. The Constitution recognizes an adversary system as the proper method of determining guilt, and the Government, as a litigant, has a legitimate interest in seeing that cases in which it believes a conviction is warranted are tried before the tribunal which the Constitution regards as most likely to produce a fair result.”
    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.