Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2013 ND 172 - Baatz v. State

Baatz v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2013

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Tom Beuchler Construction, Inc. v. City of Williston · Owens v. State · Dewey v. Letz · Murchison v. State · Carlson v. Workforce Safety & Insurance

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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Nicholas] Baatz was convicted by a jury of gross sexual imposition in 2009 and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. In 2010 Baatz filed an application for postconviction relief alleging he was denied effective assistance of counsel because no attorney was appointed for him before trial and because the attorney who finally was appointed failed to appeal his criminal conviction. A hearing was held, and Baatz testified in support of his claims. The district court granted the petition insofar as Baatz requested the right to file an untimely appeal from his criminal conviction, but did not specifically address the other issues raised because “[t]estimony by Defendant at the hearing indicated his only contention at this point was his denial of a right to appeal issue and not ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.” Baatz appealed from the criminal judgment and filed a N.D.R.App.P. 24 supplemental brief raising the same arguments that were not specifically addressed by the district court in the post-conviction order. Baatz did not appeal from the postconvietion order, but the State appealed, arguing the court erred in allowing Baatz to file an untimely appeal from the criminal judgment. In [State v.] Baatz, 2011 ND 195, ¶¶ 1-3 , 806 N.W.2d 438 [ (hereinafter “Baatz I”)], this Court affirmed the conviction and the court’s decision to allow the appeal “without prejudice to Baatz’s right to raise denial of his constitutional right to counsel and ineffective assistance of counsel i”
    1 later decision 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.