Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 179 Vt. 442 - State v. Oscarson

State v. Oscarson’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 2022

11 state decisions

40200620102020decided

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 Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Hill v. United States · State v. Oscarson · United States v. Rourke

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

  1. “A court may correct an illegal sentence at any time and may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the time provided in this section for the reduction of sentence. A court may reduce a sentence: (1) Within two years after the sentence is imposed; (2) Within one hundred twenty days after receipt by the court of a remitti-tur issued upon affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of the appeal; or (3) Within one hundred twenty days after entry of any order or judgment of the Supreme Court denying re view of, or having the effect of upholding, a judgment of conviction; whichever is later. A court may also reduce a sentence upon revocation of probation or suspension of sentence as provided by law. The remedies provided by this section are not a substitute for nor do they affect any remedies incident to post-conviction proceedings.”
    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.