Gomez v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Fajardo v. State · Bivins v. State · Sides v. State · Hurst v. State · Ramon v. State
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defendant's substantial rights 'include a right to sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the charge; and, if the amendment does not affect any particular defense or change the positions of either of the parties, it does not violate these rights.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“may be amended in matters of substance ... by the prosecuting attorney, upon giving written notice to the defendant at any time”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“For'over twenty years prior to Fajardo , case law regularly’ permitted amendments related to matters of substance as long as the substantial rights of the defendant were not prejudiced, regardless of whether the amendments were untimely under I.C. § 35 — 34—1—5(b). On -January 16, 2007, our [s]upreme [c]ourt changed course and held that the statute clearly required amendments of substance to be made not less than thirty days before the omnibus dates, even if a defendant’s substantial rights were not prejudiced by the amendment. The legislature immediately responded to Fa-jardo by amending the statute, effective May 8, 2007, to reflect the pre-Fajardo law (ie., amendments of substance permitted anytime before trial so long as the defendant’s substantial rights are not prejudiced). Thus, Fajardo was superseded by statute in less than four months. This prompt return to- pre-Fa-jardo law indicates urgency in the legislature’s desire to negate the effects of Fajardo . Though the legislature did not expressly provide for retroactive application of the amended statute, we are confident that this was the clear intent of. such legislation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Abernathy v. Gulden
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.