State v. Luedtke’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably State v. Marti (1980), State v. McFadden (1982)
24 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 State v. Hall · State v. Mayhew · State v. Horton · State v. Thompson · State v. McKeever
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This matter is remanded to the Board of Adjustment for further proceedings consistent with this ruling, if within 15 days of the date of this ruling the Petitioner Mr. Sereda requests such further proceedings; if he does not his petition for a special use permit will be deemed withdrawn... . The remand might result in no subsequent appeal; if it does, the new ... record will likely result in some change in the issues now before us. Furthermore, to remand for statement of reasons presupposes that the trial court will reach the same result ..., while it is possible that a trial court, in enunciating the reasons for the disposition, might feel inclined to reach a different result. We should allow enough latitude to do so if it appears to be justified.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This court has consistently recognized that trial courts are in a superior position to assess the situation and determine the appropriate sentence. From this recognition has emerged the principle that where the sentence imposed is within the statutory maximum, we will only interfere if an abuse of discretion is shown. That standard of review was articulated in the early case of State v. Fairweather, 195 Iowa 437, 439 , 192 N.W. 266 , 266 (1923) and has been adhered to consistently by this court. See e. g., State v. Moreland, 252 N.W.2d 465, 466 (Iowa 1977).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Spence“(w)ithout question, articulation of the rationale undergirding a sentence would assist both trial court and the appellate court on review. The view that such a record is desirable has now been embodied in a rule which we view as mandatory. Iowa R. Crim. P. [2.23(3)(cZ) ] now provides that “(t)he court shall state on the record its reason for selecting the particular sentence.””
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.