148 N.J. Super. 558 - State v. Tully’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 1998
3 federal appellate · 16 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 State v. Abbott · 139 N.J. Super. 342 - Anske v. Borough of Palisades Park · State v. Tumminello · State v. Alvarado · 64 N.J. Super. 191 - State v. Abbott
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[WJhile the rule literally requires the order for relief to be “entered” not later than 60 days from sentence, we take this as evincing a directory intent in relation to the judge but not a jurisdictional bar as against an applicant for relief who has filed his motion well within the 60-day period specified. It is not reasonable to impute to the rule an intent to proffer to a defendant a means for obtaining sentencing relief with one hand and to deprive him of its benefit with the other on the unjust basis of another’s failure to comply with a time directive. In so holding, however, we point out that the directory policy of the rule is a strong one and that the bench should be at pains to comply with it punctiliously.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. E.R.“The court may reduce or change a sentence by order entered not later than 60 days from the date of the judgment of conviction....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.