Vernier v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 2022
3 federal appellate · 18 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. Lovasco · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Martin v. Wainwright · Rabinovitch v. Nyquist
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Wyoming has no statute of limitations for criminal offenses, and prosecution for such offenses may be commenced at any time during the life of the offender. Story v. State, 721 P.2d 1020, 1026 , 65 A.L.R.4th 1011 (Wyo.1986). However, when a delay in bringing charges results in prejudice to a defendant, due process considerations may arise. Id. at 1027 ; United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 789 , 97 S.Ct. 2044, 2048 , 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977). In order to require dismissal of a charge, it is necessary that a preindictment delay cause "substantial prejudice to [appellant's] rights to a fair trial and that the delay was an intentional device to gain tactical advantage over the accused." Story, 721 P.2d at 1027 , quoting from United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 324 , 92 S.Ct. 455, 465 , 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Remmick v. State“"[I)n the interests of justice and recognizing that young children cannot be expected to be exact regarding times and dates, a child's uncertainty as to time or date upon which the offense charged was committed goes to the weight rather than the admissibility of the evidence. State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742 , 309 S.E.2d 203 (1983); State v. King, 256 N.C. 236 , 123 S.E.2d 486 (1962). See: State v. Sills, 311 N.C. 370 , 317 S.E.2d 379 (1984). Nonsuit may not be allowed on the ground that the State's evidence fails to fix any definite time for the offense where there is sufficient evidence that defendant committed each essential act of the offense. * * *" State v. Wood, 311 N.C. 739 , 319 S.E.2d 247 (1984).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Heywood 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.