Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 968 S.W.2d 100 - State v. Morrow

State v. Morrow’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

110
cited by 110 later decisions
1
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

110 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably State v. Baumruk (2009), State v. Hall (1998)

110 state decisions

690199820002010decided

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 Batson v. Kentucky · Wright v. Wright · Oklahoma v. New Mexico · Dennis v. Dennis · Cruz v. New York

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

  1. “All offenses that are of the same or similar character or based on two or more acts that are part of the same transaction or on two or more acts or transactions that are connected or that constitute parts of a common scheme or plan may be charged in the same indictment or information in separate counts.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Connected” is defined as: “[jjoined; united by junction, by an intervening substance or medium, by dependence or relation, or by order in a series.” Black’s Law Dictionary 302 (6th ed.1990). In Webster’s, “connected” is defined as: “joined or linked together [in] a series, having the parts or elements logically related.... ” Webster’s International 480 (3d ed.1981).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “If joinder is improper, then severance is required.”); Rule 24.07(a) (requiring, as a prerequisite to severance, “a written motion requesting a separate trial of the offense[s]”). In the absence of such a motion, multiple charges brought within a single charging document ‘‘shall be tried jointly.” Rule 24.07 (emphasis added); see also § 545.885.1 (”
    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.