Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 959 S.W.2d 503 - State v. Mann

State v. Mann’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
2
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably Blue v. State (2000), State v. Banks (2008)

32 state decisions

220199820002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Brady v. United States · Lockett v. Ohio

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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “that his office selects the jury venire from a list of licensed drivers in the county. Out of the total county population of 38,000 people, there are 28,000 licensed drivers. Members of [the Clerk’s] office calculate the number of jurors required for a two year period, which in this case was approximately 3,000. They then divide the number of licensed drivers by the number of jurors needed. The quotient determines the number of names they will skip when they count down the alphabetical list of 28,000 licensed drivers to obtain 3,000 jurors.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[t]o hold, as the defendant urges, that the State can pursue no greater charge or seek no greater punishment than that offered during plea negotiations could effectively abolish the practice of plea bargaining in first degree murder cases. Prosecutors would rarely, if ever, be willing to make an offer of leniency in exchange for a guilty plea. We decline to adopt such a radical and far reaching principle.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “abandoned the ‘confusing distinction between general and specific intent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.