State v. Jojola’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1992 · most notably Riggins v. Nevada (1992), State v. Duran (1978)
42 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 United States v. Marion · United States v. Feinberg · State v. Potter · Novak v. Dow · State v. Crump
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. A showing of substantial prejudice is required before one can obtain a dismissal for pre-indictment delay. 2. the elapsed time, in itself, does not determine whether prejudice has resulted from the delay. 3. Substantial prejudice may not exist even when actual prejudice is shown; every delay-caused detriment does not amount to substantial prejudice. 4. Where actual prejudice is shown, the actual prejudice must be balanced against the reasons for the delay in determining whether a defendant has been substantially prejudiced.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gonzales · State v. Lewis“cognitive part of the brain to come back into play.”
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.