Ranta v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State v. Guillaume (1999), State v. Triplett (2008)
51 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 Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Douglas v. People of State of California · Evitts v. Lucey · Townsend v. Burke
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any step of the proceeding where there is potential for substantial prejudice to the defendant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Garner · State v. Matt“[The sentence review procedure] functions as an appellate process because it is the only opportunity a criminal defendant has to challenge an otherwise lawful sentence on equitable grounds. See State v. Simtob (1969), 154 Mont. 286, 288 , 462 P.2d 873, 874 . In conducting its review, the Sentence Review Division functions as an arm of this Court. Section 46-18-901, MCA. Were the legislature to abolish the review division, the function of reviewing sentences on equitable grounds would thus simply return to this Court. Additionally, like decisions issued directly by this Court, the decisions of the review division are final, cannot be appealed, and are reported in the Montana Reports. Section 46-18-905, MCA.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Hernandez · State v. Deese“Because the Sentence Review Division functions as an arm of this Court, this Court has the supervisory authority to ensure that it complies with statutes and rules governing its operations as well as the Montana Constitution and the United States Constitution. Section 46-18-901(1), MCA; Art. VII, Sec. 2, Mont. Const. Additionally, Rule 17(a), M.R.App.P., codifies this Court’s power to “hear and determine such original and remedial writs as may be necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction.” It is on that basis that we are authorized to review the decision of the Sentence Review Division.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jordan v. State
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.