State v. Rolling’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
2 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably State v. Jackson (1987), State v. Oliver (1989)
2 district · 31 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 State v. Carter · State v. Journey · State v. Gaston · State v. Meadows · State v. French
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]his court [will not] resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, determine the plausibility of-explanations, or weigh the evidence. Such matters are for the trier of fact, and the verdict must be sustained if, taking the view most favorable to the State, there is sufficient evidence to support it.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ross · State v. Bishop“Rolling was found by the court to be an habitual criminal. Nevertheless, he was sentenced by the trial court on the first four counts to terms of imprisonment of less than 10 years. In addition, he was specifically sentenced to a term of imprisonment as an habitual criminal. The sentencing is in all respects improper and must be corrected. Under the provisions of § 29-2221, one is not sentenced as an habitual criminal. This is due to the fact that the habitual criminal statute is not a separate offense but, rather, provides an enhancement of the penalty with a minimum sentence of 10 years and a maximum sentence of 60 years for each conviction [of] one found to be an habitual criminal even though, absent a conviction as an habitual criminal, the minimum or maximum sentence might be less. See State v. Journey, 201 Neb. 607 , 271 N.W.2d 320 (1978).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rolling
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.