State v. Parkhurst’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 124 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 132 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably State v. Tokar (1996), State v. Gentry (2005)
4 federal appellate · 124 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 Rita v. United States · Latimer v. Stainer · Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n Local Union No. 6 · 117 Wash. 2d 93 - State v. Kjorsvik · State v. Hall
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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When the issue is raised for the first time after verdict, the indictment or information will be deemed insufficient only if it is so defective that (1) it does not by any reasonable construction charge the offense of which the defendant was convicted or (2) the substantial rights of the defendant to prepare a defense and plead former jeopardy in the event of acquittal are prejudiced. In either event, a defendant will not be entitled to relief based on a post-verdict claim that the information or indictment is insufficient unless the defendant demonstrates actual prejudice.””
22 later decisions quote this exact passage“... Subject matter jurisdiction of the circuit court and the sufficiency of the information or indictment are two distinct concepts. The blending of those concepts serves only to confuse the issue to be determined. Circuit courts obviously have subject matter jurisdiction to try crimes, including the felony of unlawful use of weapons. Mo. Const, art V, § 14(a). At the same time, a person cannot be convicted of a crime with which the person was not charged unless it is a lesser included offense of a charged offense. ... Cases stating that jurisdiction is dependent upon the sufficiency of the indictment or information mix separate questions. That language in Montgomery, Gilmore, Brooks and other cases should not be relied on in the future. Equally inaccurate is the statement in at least one case that absence of an information deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the person. State v. Barrett, 44 S.W.2d 76 , 78 (Mo.1931).”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he knowingly . . . [e]xhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner.”
2 later decisions 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.