State v. Crose’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently January 1982 · most notably State v. Richmond (1976), State v. Schantz (1965)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 58 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 Durham v. United States · State v. Eisenstein · State v. White · State v. Coey · State of Arizona v. MacIas
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ . . . [D]efendant contends that the right to have medical experts appointed by the court, at the state’s expense, to examine him and assist his defense, is an integral and essential part of his constitutionally-guaranteed right to counsel. He has cited us no authority to support that position, and our own independent investigation has disclosed none. That he has the right to counsel . . . is not in doubt. . . . We know of nothing, however, either by constitution or by statute, requiring the state at its own expense to make available to the defendant, in addition to counsel, the full paraphernalia of defense. . . . We have no doubt that those who make the law could appropriately provide impecunious defendants with such assistance as was sought here, were it deemed practicable and in the public interest to do so. They have not done so. They were under no constitutional compulsion to do so. . . . ””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“". . We are under no illusions concerning the M’Naghten Rules. They do not provide a perfect test for criminal responsibility. They may not even provide a good one. They merely provide what we believe to be, in all the circumstances, still the best that is available. We decline to abandon them. . . .’’ (l. c. 394.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Andrews v. Hand · State v. Conrad“"Appellant, in urging that we here broaden the term 'counsel' to include expert witnesses, misconstrues the function of this Court. That function in this case is only to interpret the constitutional provision; not to write it or re-write it. He asks us to construe it broadly — but we cannot 'construe' it when merely reading it will alone suffice. We have no doubt that those who make the law could appropriately provide impecunious defendants with such assistance as was sought here, were it deemed praticable and in the public interest to do so. They have not done so. They were under no constitutional compulsion to do so."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Utsler 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.