Roeschlein v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently February 2025
21 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 United States v. Williams · Gleason v. State · Dettloff v. State · Candelaria v. State · Cazier 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We review a district court's sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. Roeschlein v. State, 2007 WY 156, ¶ 17 , 168 P.3d 468, 473 (Wyo.2007). A sentence will not be disturbed because of sentencing procedures unless the defendant can show an abuse of discretion, procedural conduct prejudicial to him, cireumstances which manifest inherent unfairness and injustice, or conduct which offends the public sense of fair play. Id. An error warrants reversal only when it is prejudicial and it affects an appellant's substantial rights. Id. The party who is appealing bears the burden to establish that an error was prejudicial. Id.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Garza v. State · David Charles Croy“We have consistently ruled that an appellant bears the burden of bringing to the reviewing court a sufficient record on which to base its decision, and he cannot supplement the appellate record by attaching documents to his brief. The rules of appellate procedure provide a basis for supplementing the official record, and we will not condone a party's failure to utilize the rules by considering documents which are simply attached to a brief.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Except as authorized by this act, it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, deliver, or possess with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance. Any person who violates this subsection with respect to: [[Image here]] (ii) Any other controlled substance classified in Schedule I, II or III, is guilty of a crime and upon conviction may be imprisoned for not more than ten (10) years, fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), or both[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Anderson 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.