Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 Idaho 413 - State v. Camarillo

State v. Camarillo’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 2024

8 state decisions

3019891990200020102020decided

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. Money · State v. Vega · State v. Saykhamchone

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

  1. “The term “consecutive” is inappropriate when referring to a sentence enhancement for use of a firearm. It may connote, inaccurately, the existence of two separate sentences. It is well established in our case law that, regardless of terminology employed, a firearm enhancement is part of a single sentence. Although we require the enhancement to be specifically identified for possible appellate review, “the base sentence and the enhancement should be construed as one continuous sentence.” State v. Vega, 113 Idaho 756, 757 , 747 P.2d 778, 779 (Ct.App.1987). See also State v. Saykhamchone, 112 Idaho 1128 , 739 P.2d 427 (Ct.App.1987); State v. Money, 109 Idaho 757 , 710 P.2d 667 (Ct.App.1985).”
    2 later decisions 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.