Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 977 SW2D 379 - Wilson v. State

Wilson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Blue v. State (2000), Rosell v. Central West Motor Stages, Inc. (2002)

33 state decisions

230199820002010decided

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 Arizona v. Evans · Boykin v. State · Donovan v. Dewey · Marin v. State · Hobby v. United States

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

  1. “[h]ow, then, may a defendant challenge the authority of a judge, who is otherwise qualified, to preside pursuant to an expired assignment? We hold that such a defendant, if he chooses, may object pretrial; if he does not, he may not object later or for the first time on appeal. This holding is consistent with our prior holding that, in general, all but the most fundamental evidentiary and procedural rules (or “rights”) are forfeited if not asserted at or before trial.... A timely objection in the trial court will afford both the trial judge and the State notice of the procedural irregularity and an adequate opportunity to take appropriate corrective action.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A]ll but the most fundamental eviden-tiary and procedural rules (or ‘rights’) are forfeited if not asserted at or before trial. A timely objection in the trial court will afford both the trial judge and the State notice of the procedural irregularity and an adequate opportunity to take appropriate corrective action.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.