State v. Newman’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably United States v. Gibbens (1994), Commonwealth v. Runion (1995)
6 federal appellate · 45 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 Morrissey v. Brewer · Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc. · State v. De Bonis · State v. Kunz · In Re Parole Application of Trantino
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“b. The court shall sentence a defendant to pay restitution in addition to a sentence of imprisonment or probation that may be imposed if: (2) The defendant is able to pay or, given a fair opportunity, will be able to pay restitution. [c.] (2) In determining the amount and method of payment of restitution, the court shall take into account all financial resources of the defendant, including the defendant’s likely future earnings, and shall set the amount of restitution so as to provide the victim with the fullest compensation for loss that is consistent with the defendant’s ability to pay. [N.J.S.A. 2C:44-2b(2), c(2)]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“At the time of defendant’s sentencing, the court was required, before imposing a fine or restitution, to determine “if the defendant is able, or given a fair opportunity to do so, will be able to pay the fine or make restitution, or both.” N.J.S.A. 2C:44-2b. If the court is satisfied that a defendant possesses or could possess that ability, it may set “the amount and method of payment ..., takfing] into account the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that its payment will impose.” N.J.S.A. 2C:44-2c (amended by L. 1991, c. 329). [State v. Newman, 132 N.J. 159, 169 , 623 A.2d 1355 (1993).]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“a. The court may sentence a defendant to pay a fine in addition to a sentence of imprisonment or probation if: (1) The defendant has derived a pecuniary gain from the offense; or the court is of opinion that a fine is specially adapted to deterrence of the type of offense involved or to the correction of the offender; (2) The defendant is able, or given a fair opportunity to do so, will be able to pay the fine; and (3) The fine will not prevent the defendant from making restitution to the victim of the offense. c. d) In determining the amount and method of payment of a fine, the court shall take into account the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that its payment will impose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Ferguson
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.