State v. Crenshaw’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably State v. Johnson (2000), State v. Andrews (2000)
43 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 Boykin v. Alabama · North Carolina v. Alford · McCarthy v. United States · Wood v. Georgia · Nix v. Whiteside
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[d]ue process requires that a plea be entered voluntarily and intelligently. ... Because every valid guilty plea must be demonstrably voluntary, knowing and intelligent, we require the record to disclose an act that represents a knowing choice among available alternative courses of action, an understanding of the law in relation to the facts , and sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences of the plea. ... A determination as to whether a plea has been knowingly and voluntarily entered entails an examination of all of the relevant circumstances.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[O]nce entered, a guilty plea cannot be withdrawn except by leave of the court, within its sound discretion, and a denial thereof is reversible only if it appears that there has been an abuse of discretion.' Szarwak v. Warden, 167 Conn. 10 , 23 , 355 A.2d 49 (1974). `The burden is always on the defendant to show a plausible reason for the withdrawal of a plea of guilty.' State v. Slater, 169 Conn. 38 , 46 , 362 A.2d 499 (1975).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(6) The plea either was not entered by a person authorized to act for a corporate defendant or was not subsequently ratified by a corporate defendant.”
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.