Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 280 N.W.2d 38 - State v. DeFoe

State v. DeFoe’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
2
states following
January 2012
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently January 2012

21 state decisions

10019791980199020002010decided

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 Brown v. Ohio · State v. Johnson · State v. Prudhomme · State Ex Rel. Stangvik v. Tahash · State v. Olsen

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

  1. “[a]llowing multiple sentencing ... does not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct and the double sentence seems commensurate with defendant's increased culpability”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “When two or more defendants shall be jointly charged with a felony, they shall be tried separately provided, however, upon written motion, the court in the interests of justice and not solely related to economy of time or expense may order a joint trial for any two or more said defendants. In cases other than felonies, defendants jointly charged may be tried jointly or separately, in the discretion of the court. In all cases any one or more of said defendants may be convicted or acquitted.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Here, while the [aiding and abetting] statute was not cited in the complaint, the complaint made it clear that defendant was being charged with aggravated robbery, and the reports and statements attached to the complaint made it clear what the state basically contended had happened. There is therefore no possibility that defendant was confused as to the nature of the charges.”
    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.