Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 14 NEBCTAPP 117 - State v. Ziemann

State v. Ziemann’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
February 2009
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Rakas v. Illinois · Oliver v. United States · State v. Konfrst · State v. Cody · State v. Keup

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

  1. “[c]lerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court by an order nunc pro tunc at any time on the court's initiative or on the motion of any party....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “During the pendency of an appeal, [clerical] mistakes may be so corrected before the case is submitted for decision in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]t is clear that a criminal sentence can be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc”
    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.