Ruff v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently July 2016
21 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 Ake v. Oklahoma · State v. Hill · State v. Davis · State v. Barnett · State v. Hughes
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.
“(1) the language of the indictment is sufficient to meet the constitutional requirements of notice to the accused of the charge against which the accused must defend, adequate basis for entry of a proper judgment, and protection from double jeopardy; (2) the form of the indictments meets the requirements of Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-13-202; and (3) the mental state can be logically inferred from the conduct alleged.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cureton · State v. Carter“THE GRAND JURORS ... present that: MICHAEL SMITH on July 21, 2010 in Shelby County, Tennessee, and before the finding of this indictment, did unlawfully and knowingly, after having been enjoined by an order of the general Sessions Criminal Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, a court of competent jurisdiction, from threatening to commit Domestic Assault or Assault against KIMBERLY CHRESTMAN, threaten to commit Domestic Assault or Assault against KIMBERLY CHRESTMAN, in violation of T.C.A. 39-13-102, against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[W]e emphasize the fact that the Court has moved away from the strict pleading requirements adhered to under the common law. As we noted in Hill , “the purpose of the traditionally strict pleading requirement was the existence of common law offenses whose elements were not easily ascertained by reference to a statute. Such common law offenses no longer exist.” Were we to hold otherwise, we would be embracing technicalities that are empty and without reason.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hammonds
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.