People v. Duran’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
111 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably People v. Watkins (1980), Triggs v. People (1979)
111 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 Williams v. People of State of New York · United States v. Tucker · Eisenstadt v. Baker · Williams v. State of Oklahoma · 49 Wis. 2d 263 - McCleary 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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When sentence is imposed upon any person following a conviction of any felony in which the sentence was imposed by the court, the person shall have the right to one appellate review of the propriety of the sentence, having regard to the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, the public interest, and the sufficiency and accuracy of the information on which the sentence was based. “The appellate court may review only a sentence imposed which is more than three years greater than the minimum sentence provided for the offense.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The general objectives of sentence review are: “(i) to correct the sentence which is excessive in length, having regard to the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, and the protection of the public interest; “(ii) to facilitate the rehabilitation of the offender by affording him an opportunity to assert grievances he may have regarding his sentence; “(Hi) to promote respect for law by correcting abuses of the fairness of the sentencing process; and “(iv) to promote the development and application of criteria for sentencing which are both rational and just.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Edwards“In fixing punishment, matters and things other than a defendant’s guilt of the particular crime are to be considered. Appropriate, perhaps necessary, to the inquiry are the history, background, character and criminal activities of the defendant. Both aggravating and mitigating circumstances are relevant. Pertinent information is not generally to be disregarded because of exclusionary rules of evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Garcia
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.