State v. Pease’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2009 · most notably 171 Ill. 2d 74 - People v. Moore (1996), State v. Miller (1988)
33 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 Hurtado v. People of the State of California · State v. Greeno · State v. Boyer · State v. Higley · State v. Maldonado
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.
“Payment of costs by defendant. (1) A court may require a convicted defendant in a felony or misdemeanor case to pay costs, as defined in 25-10-201, plus costs of jury service as a part of his sentence. Such costs shall be limited to expenses specifically incurred by the prosecution in connection with the proceedings against the defendant. (2) The Court may not sentence a defendant to pay costs unless the defendant is or will be able to pay them. In determining the amount and method of payment of costs, the court shall take into account the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that payment of costs will impose. (3) A defendant who has been sentenced to pay costs and who is not in default in the payment thereof may at any time petition the court that sentenced him for remission of the payment of costs or of any unpaid portion thereof. If it appears to the satisfaction of the court that payment of the amount due will impose manifest hardship on the defendant or his immediate family, the court may remit all or part of the amount due in costs. ... (Emphasis added.) In two different cases the constitutionality of the foregoing statute”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Montana v. Fertterer““[T]he conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation” absent an allegation and showing that “the selection was deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classifi cation” such as sex, or the exercise of the First Amendment right to free speech.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Stanko““(1) . . . the evidence must have come to the knowledge of the applicant since the trial; “(2) that it was not through a want of diligence that it was not discovered earlier; “(3) that it is so material that it would probably produce a different result upon another trial;” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Miller
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.