State v. Hardesty’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably State v. Ford (1999), State v. Broadaway (1997)
31 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
Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Santobello v. New York · Benton v. Maryland · Green v. United States · United States v. DiFrancesco
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“acquires a legitimate expectation of finality in a sentence, substantially or fully served, unless the defendant was on notice the sentence might be modified.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Miller · State v. Gonzalez“(1) Motion. Application shall be made by motion stating the grounds upon which relief is asked, and supported by affidavits setting forth a concise statement of the facts or errors upon which the motion is based. (2) Initial Consideration. The court may deny the motion without a hearing if the facts alleged in the affidavits do not establish grounds for relief. The court may transfer a motion to the Court of Appeals for consideration as a personal restraint petition if such transfer would serve the ends of justice. Otherwise, the court shall enter an order fixing a time and place for hearing and directing the adverse party to appear and show cause why the relief asked for should not be granted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hardesty“In DiFrancesco , the Court held the defendant lacked an expectation of finality in the sentence because he was charged with knowledge the racketeering statute provided for review of the sentencing determination, and the government had promptly sought review within the relevant statutory period.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gonzalez
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.