Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 129 NH 126 - State v. Rau

State v. Rau’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
3
states following
November 2017
most recently cited

1 district · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably State v. Stearns (1988), Duquette v. Warden, New Hampshire State Prison (2007)

1 district · 26 state decisions

1001987199020002010decided

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 Burns v. United States · United States v. Benz · United States v. Daugherty · Stapleford v. Perrin · 455 So. 2d 160 - Watkins v. State

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

  1. ““It is in the sentencing process that punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation meet in a common forum where the court, within the framework of the Criminal Code and the common law, conveys society’s sanctions upon a particular defendant for a certain crime. At the conclusion of the sentencing proceeding, a defendant and the society which brought him to court must know in plain and certain terms what punishment has been exacted by the court as well as the extent to which the court retained discretion to impose punishment at a later date and under what conditions the sentence may be modified.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““New Hampshire law no longer specifies whether multiple sentences imposed run concurrently or consecutively. The legislature repealed [the statute] to afford a judge, with discretion, the option to impose consecutive sentences in order to deal with that group of criminals who need the deterrent of consecutive sentences. The legislature additionally indicated that in the remainder of cases ‘[judges] should almost always impose sentences concurrently.’ N.H.S. JOUR. 306 (1975).””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““when a sentencing order, encompassing multiple counts or multiple indictments, is silent as to whether the sentences imposed on each count or indictment are to run concurrently or consecutively, the presumption is that the sentences run concurrently. If... a sentencing court intends to impose consecutive sentences, it must specifically state that intention in its order.””
    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.