Ieppert v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Cockrell v. State (1996), Saldano v. State (2002)
2 federal appellate · 50 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 Almanza v. State · Marin v. State · American Plant Food Corporation v. State · Studer v. State · Rogers 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... the character of our law is such that the right to complain on appeal about most other trial errors is also contingent upon a specific pretrial or contemporaneous objection. ... [The Court of Appeals stated] that legal rights, even those assured by due process, are usually forfeitable by inaction. Clearly, the court was right about this. Because the law ordinarily expects litigants to insist upon their rights at a time when they can be implemented, appellate courts should not consider such rights to have been violated if the beneficiary was willing to forgo them at trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cockrell v. State“(b) If the defendant does not object to a defect, error, or irregularity of form or substance of an indictment or information before the date on which the trial on the merits commences, he waives and forfeits the right to object to the defect, error, or irregularity and he may not raise the objection on appeal or in any other postcon-viction proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Konchar v. State“The constitutional prohibition against ex post facto legislation [a category-one Marin right] is not really an individual right at all. It is a categorical prohibition directed by the people to their government.”
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.