State v. Drew’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently December 2024
24 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. Simtob · Campus 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The only remaining issue for review is whether a six month imprisonment is proper under the presumption of entitlement to a deferred imposition of sentence, directed by section 54-133(e), R.G.M.1947. We think not. “The state’s principal argument is that section 95-2206, R.C.M.1947, Montana’s sentencing statute, provides: “ ‘Sentence. Whenever any person has been found guilty of a crime or offense upon a verdict or plea the court may impose any of the following sentences: “ ‘ (1) Release the defendant on probation; “‘(2) Defer the imposition of sentence for a period not to exceed three (3) years; “‘(3) Suspend the execution of the sentence up to the maximum sentence allowed for the particular offense. However, if any restrictions or conditions are violated, any elapsed time shall not be a credit against the sentence, unless the court shall otherwise order; “ ‘ (4) Impose a fine as provided by law for the offense; “‘(5) Commit the defendant to a correctional institution with or without a fine as provided by law for the offense; “ ‘(6) Impose any combination of the above. The court may impose any restrictions or conditions on the above sentence which it deems necessary.’ “The state argues that section 95-2206 read literally authorized the combination of a deferred sentence and a jail term. The defect in this argument lies in the one fact which has been overlooked. Here, we are considering the sentencing mandate of a special statute under the Dangerous Drug Act, section 54-133 (”
3 later decisions 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.