Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2001 WY 126 - Sweets v. State

Sweets v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
October 2023
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 2023

11 state decisions

70200120102020decided

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 Vaughn v. State · 41 Wash. App. 495 - Byerly v. Madsen · Renfro v. State · Mead v. State · McFarlane 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A criminal defendant is entitled to credit against his sentence for the time he was incarcerated prior to sentencing, provided that the confinement was due to his inability and failure to post bond on the offense for which he was awaiting disposition. The purpose of this rule is to provide equal protection to defendants who are unable to post bond because of their indigence. A defendant is not, however,, entitled to credit for the time he spent in custody when his confinement would have continued de- ' spite his ability to post bond.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Sweets' receipt of thirty-one days pre-sentence credit at the time of his sentence for the second conviction is not contrary to the law. It is within the trial court's discretion to grant or deny credit for time served in presentence detention if (1) the detention is not due to the defendant's indigency, and (2) the sum of the time spent in presentence detention plus the sentence given upon conviction does not exceed the maximum allowable sentence. Hedge v. State, 696 P.2d 51, 52 (Wyo.1985).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “'other confinement that would continue to exist without regard' for the posting of bond on that offense.”
    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.