State v. Skolaut’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Landmark National Bank v. Kesler (2009), State v. Berreth (2012)
2 federal appellate · 70 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 Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Koon v. United States · Black v. Romano · State v. White · State v. Mountjoy
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'In identifying the procedural requirements of due process, we have observed that the decision to revoke probation typically involves two distinct components: (1) a retrospective factual question whether the probationer has violated a condition of probation; and (2) a discretionary determination by the sentencing authority whether violation of a condition warrants revocation of probation. See Gagnon [ v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 , 784, 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed. 2d 656 (1973).]'' (Emphasis added.) [ Black v. Romano ], 471 U.S. 606 , 611, 105 S.Ct. 2254 , 85 L.Ed. 2d 636 (1985). ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`matters of statewide interest important to the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law and the interpretation of statutes,'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"(b)(4) Except as otherwise provided, if the defendant waives the right to a hearing and the sentencing court has not specifically withheld the authority from court services or community correctional services to impose sanctions, the following sanctions may be imposed without further order of the court: (A) If the defendant was on probation at the time of the violation, the defendant's supervising court services officer, with the concurrence of the chief court services officer, may impose the violation sanctions as provided in subsection (c)(1)(B); and (B) if the defendant was assigned to a community correctional services program at the time of the violation, the defendant's community corrections officer, with the concurrence of the community corrections director, may impose the violation sanctions as provided in subsection (c)(1)(B). "(c)(1) Except as otherwise provided, the following violation sanctions may be imposed: (A) Continuation or modification of the release conditions of the probation, assignment to a community correctional services program, suspension of sentence or nonprison sanction; (B) an intermediate sanction of confinement in jail for a total of not more than six days per month in any three separate months during the period of release supervision. The six days per month confinement may only be imposed as two-day or three-day consecutive periods, not to exceed 18 days of total confinement; (C) if the violator already had at least one intermediate sanction imp”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Dooley
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.