Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2010 UT 32 - State v. Candedo

State v. Candedo’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

35 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Kansas v. Hendricks · Chapman v. United States · Jau-Fei Chen v. Stewart · United States v. Angelos · Condemarin v. University Hospital

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. “court may correct an illegal sentence, or a sentence imposed in an illegal manner, at any time.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served, is internally contradictory, omits a term required to be imposed by statute, is uncertain as to the substance of the sentence, or is a sentence which the judgment of conviction did not authorize.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[al 'patently' or 'manifestly' illegal sentence [is one] ... (1) where the sentencing court has no jurisdiction, ... (2) where the sentence is beyond the authorized statutory range,”
    7 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.