Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1 Neb. Ct. App. 541 - State v. Ummel

1 Neb. Ct. App. 541 - State v. Ummel’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
July 1998
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Jallen · State v. Dobbins · State v. Foral · State v. Winsley · State v. Wojcik

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

  1. “[T]he appellate court, upon a review of the record, shall determine whether the sentence imposed is excessively lenient, having regard for: (1) The nature and circumstances of the offense; (2) The history and characteristics of the defendant; (3) The need for the sentence imposed: (a) To afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (b) To protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; (c) To reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; and (d) To provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; and (4) Any other matters appearing in the record which the appellate court deems pertinent.”
    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.