Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 232 Mont. 156 - State v. Smith

State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 2022

20 state decisions

10019881990200020102020decided

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. Matson · State v. Hubbard · State v. Pease · Lewis v. State · State v. Lamere

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

  1. “46-18-501. Definition of a persistent felony offender. A “persistent felony offender” is an offender who has previously been convicted of a felony and who is presently being sentenced for a second felony committed on a different occasion than the first. An offender is considered to have been previously convicted of a felony if: (1) the previous felony conviction was for an offense committed in this state or any other jurisdiction for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of 1 year could have been imposed; (2) less than 5 years have elapsed between the commission of the present offense and either: (a) the previous felony conviction; or (b) the offender’s release on parole or otherwise from prison or other commitment imposed as a result of the previous felony conviction; and (3) the offender has not been pardoned on the ground of innocence and the conviction has not been set aside in a postconviction hearing.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the plain meaning of the word “commitment” reveals that the period of commitment begins when the defendant is handed over to law enforcement personnel for confinement, and our analysis need not proceed further because the plain meaning of the word controls its interpretation. However, our resolution of this issue is also supported by the apparent purpose of employing the term “other commitment” for initiating the period of time between convictions. That intent, as demonstrated by the other event which initiates the five year period in this subsection; release from prison, is to have the time start to run when the habitual offender is once again free, if he or she chooses, to victimize society.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “None of these probationary conditions constitute “commitment” under § 46-18-501(2)(b), MCA. ... ... “A person is committed when he [or she] is actually sentenced to confinement by a court as contrasted with a suspended sentence or probation.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.