State v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 2015
19 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 Roberts v. United States · 327 So. 2d 18 - State v. Jones · 63 Wis. 2d 109 - Prue v. State · State v. Evans · People v. Ledford
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.
““There appears to be a wide variety of approaches among the various jurisdictions as to the proper solution to the problem at hand. Some courts have held that imprisonment as a condition of probation is proper under statutory language similar to SDCL 23-57 — 4. See Franklin v. State, 1964, 87 Idaho 291 , 392 P.2d 552 ; Tabor v. Maxwell, 1963, 175 Ohio St. 373 , 194 N.E.2d 856 . Other courts were blessed with controlling statutes specifically authorizing incarceration. See State v. Jones, 1976, Fla., 327 So.2d 18 ; Prue v. State, 1974, 63 Wis.2d 109 , 216 N.W.2d 43 . Some states have held that language similar to the broad grant in SDCL 23-57-4 did not allow imprisonment, only to have their legislature authorize such a condition of probation. See State v. Van Meter, 1968, 7 Ariz.App. 422 , 440 P.2d 58 (legislative change reflected at State v. Evans, 1973, 109 Ariz. 491 , 512 P.2d 1225 ); People v. Robinson, 1931, 253 Mich. 507 , 235 N.W. 236 (legislative change reflected at People v. Sarnoff, 1942, 302 Mich. 266 , 4 N.W.2d 544 ). Other states hold that incarceration is not permissible as a condition of probation unless a statute specifically authorizes that sanction. See State v. Nuss, 1973, 190 Neb. 755 , 212 N.W.2d 565 ; People v. Ledford, 1970, 173 Colo. 194 , 477 P.2d 374 . We find the reasoning of the latter jurisdiction persuasive.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Probation ... is intended as an alternative to confinement in cases where the trial judge deems that both the defendant and the public would benefit. In suspended imposition cases its purpose is to allow the first-time offender to rehabilitate himself without the trauma of imprisonment or the stigma of a conviction record. Protection is provided the public through supervision by a probation officer and the continuing jurisdiction of the trial court to revoke probation and impose sentence should any of the conditions of probation be violated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. NUCKLOES v. Com.
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.