Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 25 N.J. 298 - State v. Laird

State v. Laird’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
4
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

3 district · 49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably State v. Dively (1983), State v. Kunz (1969)

3 district · 49 state decisions

1701957196019701980199020002010decided

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 Ex parte Lange · Bozza v. United States · United States v. Benz · In re Bonner · Roberts v. United States

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

  1. “that where a valid sentence has been put into execution, the trial court cannot modify, amend, or revise it in any way, either during or after the term or session of the court at which the sentence was pronounced.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'at any time' " did not "authorize an enlargement of the punishment after the sentence imposed had been satisfied and the defendant discharged”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The basic rule is that where the repetition of criminal action renders the accused liable to different and greater punishment, the subsequent offense is treated as a first offense unless the earlier crimes are included in the specification of the offense laid and proved on the trial; the usual practice is to allege the prior convictions in the indictment and to submit the factual issue thereby arising to the jury; and this course is a sine qua non save where the statute makes other adequate provision for the inquiry. The procedure is rooted in the fundamental common-law principle that in penal proceedings the accused shall be clearly informed of the charge he is called upon to meet; and this of necessity involves the elements of aggravation which under the statute enlarged the grade of the crime by enhancing the punishment.”
    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.