Hackett v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
October 2014
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Doherty v. State · Roeschlein v. State · Duke v. State · Smith v. State · Carothers 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In considering the statutory provision and the rule, we have said that trial courts have broad discretion when imposing sentence to consider a wide range of factors about the defendant and the crime. Thomas v. State, 2009 WY 92, ¶ 10 , 211 P.3d 509, 512 (Wyo.2009). They are free, in the exercise of their sentencing discretion, to consider victim impact statements, PSIs and other factors relating to the defendant and his crimes in imposing an appropriate sentence within the statutory range. Garcia v. State, 2007 WY 48, ¶ 10 , 153 P.3d 941, 944 (Wyo.2007), citing Smith v. State, 2005 WY 113, ¶ 37 , 119 P.3d 411, 422 (Wyo.2005).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Investigation preceding probation or suspension of sentence”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Scott 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.