Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1998 ND 72 - State v. Bender

State v. Bender’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Owens v. State (1998), DeCoteau v. State (1998)

34 state decisions

1501998200020102020decided

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 Mertz v. State · State v. Saavedra · State v. Wilson · Bell v. State · Sampson 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A petitioner is not required to provide evidentiary support for his petition until he has been given notice he is being put on his proof. At that point, the petitioner may not merely rely on the pleadings or on unsupported, conclusory allegations, but must present competent admissible evidence by affidavit or other comparable means which raises an issue of material fact. If the petitioner presents competent evidence, he is then entitled to an evidentiary hearing to fully present that evidence.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The court may grant a motion by either party for summary disposition if the application, pleadings, any previous proceeding, discovery, or other matters of record show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Without confinement to the transcript, post-conviction procedures allow development of additional evidence to evaluate claims. Use of the record from the trial does not preclude a defendant from offering other evidence about facts and occurrences not recorded during the trial. [N.D.C.C. §] 29-32.1-10. Summary denial of a post-conviction application forecloses that opportunity. "When that happens, the post-conviction procedure becomes no better than direct review on appeal.”
    2 later decisions 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.