Holland v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently August 1995
13 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2313 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952 · 29 U.S.C. § 439 · 29 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Boykin v. Alabama · Morrissey v. Brewer · In the Matter of Samuel Winship
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““939.05 Parties to crime. (1) Whoever is concerned in the commission of a crime is a principal and may he charged with and convicted of the commission of the crime although he did not directly commit it and although the person who directly committed it has not been convicted or has been convicted of some other degree of the crime or of some other crime based on the same act. “(2) A person is concerned in the commission of the crime if he: “(a) Directly commits the crime; or “(h) Intentionally aids and abets the commission of it; or “(c) Is a party to a conspiracy with another to commit it or advises, hires, counsels or otherwise procures another to commit it. Such a party is also concerned in the commission of any other crime which is committed in pursuance of the intended crime and which under the circumstances is a natural and probable consequence of the intended crime. This paragraph does not apply to a person who voluntarily changes his mind and no longer desires that the crime be committed and notifies the other parties concerned of his withdrawal within a reasonable time before the commission of the crime so as to allow the others also to withdraw.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A motion for a change of venue is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will be granted if there is a reasonable likelihood that a fair trial cannot be had. This court independently evalu ates the evidence and documents presented in support of the motion. Any doubt on this matter should be resolved in favor of the defendant. The factors which this court is obliged to consider in determining whether a change of venue ought to have been granted because of community prejudice are: [T]he inflammatory nature of the publicity; the degree to which the adverse publicity permeated the area from which the jury panel would be drawn; the timing and specificity of the publicity; the degree of care exercised, and the amount of difficulty encountered, in selecting the jury; the extent to which the jurors were familiar with the publicity; and the defendant's utilization of the challenges, both peremptory and for cause, available to him on voir dire. In addition, courts have also considered the participation of the state in the adverse publicity as relevant, as well as the severity of the offense charged and the nature of the verdict returned.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he right to a unanimous verdict... is so fundamental that it cannot be waived.”
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.