Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 106 Idaho 665 - State v. Nield

State v. Nield’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
February 2021
most recently cited

30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably State v. Babb (1994), State v. Snapp (1987)

30 state decisions

18019841990200020102020decided

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 State v. Osborn · State v. Tisdale · State v. Brewster

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

  1. “`that while the setting forth of reasons for the imposition of a particular sentence would be helpful and is encouraged, it is not mandatory.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “We granted the Petition for Review pursuant to I.A.R. 118(b)(2) to review the sole issue of whether a district court must state of record the reasons for the sentence imposed. In all other respects, the decision of the Court of Appeals remains undisturbed. The Court of Appeals examined this issue in view of their previous decision in State v. Tisdale, 103 Idaho [836] 654 P.2d 1389 (Ct.App.1982), wherein the Court of Appeals required that the sentencing court “indicate of record his reasons for the sentence then imposed.” Id. at 838, 654 P.2d at 1390 . In applying the Tisdale standard to the case at bar, the Court of Appeals stated that the district court’s oral statements made on the record at the conclusion of the hearing and in the presence of the defendant, were sufficient to satisfy the Tisdale standard. Nield, supra, 106 Idaho at 666 , 682 P.2d at 619 .”
    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.