State v. Jess’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably State v. Kalaola (2010), State v. Fitzwater. (2010)
36 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2254 · 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (§ 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Almendarez-Torres v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Stovall v. Denno
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) purely prospective effect, which means that the rule is applied neither to the parties in the law-making decision nor to those others against or by whom it might be applied to conduct or events occurring before that decision; (2) limited or “pipe line” retroactive effect, under which the rule applies to the parties in the decision and all cases that are on direct review or not yet final as of the date of the decision; or (3) full retroactive effect, under which the rule applies both to the parties before the court and to all others by and against whom claims may be pressed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Schwartz v. State. · State v. Hopu“[a] convicted defendant may be subject to an extended term of imprisonment under [HRS §] 706-661, if the convicted defendant satisfies one or more of the following criteria: (1) The defendant is a persistent offender whose imprisonment for an extended term is necessary for protection of the public. The court shall not make this finding unless the defendant has previously been convicted of two felonies committed at different times when the defendant was eighteen years of age or older. [[Image here]] (4) The defendant is a multiple offender whose criminal actions were so extensive that a sentence of imprisonment for an extended term is necessary for the protection of the public. The court shall not make this finding unless: (a) The defendant is being sentenced for two or more felonies or is already under sentence of imprisonment for felony[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Flubacher v. State. · State v. Mark“[tjhere has ... been a recent seachange in the legislature’s clearly expressed intent regarding the wisdom of employing juries in the context of extended term sentencing. The enactment of H.B. No. 2 ... during the recent special session provides this court with a fresh, conclusive expression of legislative support for the use of juries as the ti~ier of fact with respect to extended term, sentencing fact-finding and allows us to conclude with confidence, that empaneling a jury would closely effectuate policy judgments clearly articulated by the legislature, and that the legislature would prefer such a reformed version of the statute to invalidation of the statute .... In light of the recent legislation, invocation of the court’s inherent authority in the instant matter would not unduly burden or substantially interfere with the other branch’s exercise of its power.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Mark
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.