State v. Ortiz’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Boykin v. Alabama · Brady v. United States · Bordenkircher v. Hayes · Padilla v. Kentucky
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While Padilla's holding is directly applicable to our Sixth Amendment analysis in [United States v.] Fry, 322 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir.2003) it sheds no light on the obligations a district court may have under Rule 11 and [D]ue [P]rocess.”); State v. Ortiz, 163 N.H. 506, 44 A.3d 425, 431 (2012) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e do not read Padilla as rejecting the distinction between direct and collateral consequences in determining whether a defendant's guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Guzman“Padilla does not speak to the due process obligations of a trial court accepting a guilty plea,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Guzman
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.