186 N.J. Super. 174 - State v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
1 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2007 · most notably State v. Haliski (1995), 214 N.J. Super. 437 - State v. Mangrella (1986)
1 district · 25 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. McCall · 109 N.J. Super. 69 - State v. Johnson · In Re Application of Caruso · 69 N.J. Super. 105 - State v. Deckert · 97 N.J. Super. 510 - State v. Harris
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n order for one to be a second or a subsequent offender, there must have been a first or earlier conviction already entered at the time the second or subsequent offense was committed.... We are ... persuaded that simultaneous convictions are both technically and philosophically not fairly regardable as chronologically sequential convictions.... It has been the undeviating experience in this State that enhanced penalty statutes in respect of multiple convictions of crimes either expressly or by construction apply only to chronologically sequential convictions, and indeed it is arguable that that prerequisite is a matter of constitutional imperative.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If a person is convicted of a second or subsequent offense ... the sentence imposed ... shall ... include a fixed minimum sentence of not less than 5 years during which the defendant shall not be eligible for parole.... For the purpose of this section an offense is considered a second or subsequent offense, if the actor has at any time been convicted [of a sex offense therein defined.] [ Ibid. (emphasis added).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Livingston“an offense cannot be characterized as a second or subsequent offense unless at the time it was committed the defendant had already, i.e., previously, been convicted [because] simultaneous convictions are both technically and philosophically not fairly regardable as chronologically sequential convictions.”
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.