State v. Fluhr’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably State v. Priet (1981), State v. Straw (2006)
37 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 Boykin v. Alabama · McCarthy v. United States · Blackledge v. Allison · Patterson v. United States · Henderson v. Morgan
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“b. Pleas of guilty. The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and shall not accept a plea of guilty without first determining that the plea was made voluntarily and intelligently and has a factual basis. Before accepting a plea of guilty, the court must address the defendant personally in open court and inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the following: (1) The nature of the charge to which the plea is offered. (2) The mandatory minimum punishment, if any, and the maximum possible punishment provided by the statute defining the offense to which the plea is offered. [[Image here]]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. White · State v. Loye“the constitutional protections that he gives up by pleading guilty, ... 'the nature of the crime with which he is charged' and the potential penalties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“THE COURT: All right. Now, Mr. Smothers, do you admit or deny that on or about December 11, 1979, in Des Moines County, Iowa, you did enter the property of [the victim] . . . ? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Do you admit that or deny it? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, admit. THE COURT: And do you — Was your purpose in entering the premises — Was or was not your purpose in entering the premises to commit theft? THE DEFENDANT: At first, no. I went in the premises, and I had no intentions of taking anything at the time. After I was in there is when I did it. THE COURT: And your purpose in entering the premises ... at some point in time, at least after you entered the premises, was to take property; would that be true or false? THE DEFENDANT: At the time that I went in, I really had no intentions of taking the property. THE COURT: Because you didn’t know what was in there probably? THE DEFENDANT: Yes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Smothers
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.