State v. Austin’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably Minnesota v. Murphy (1984), State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones (2014)
61 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 Morrissey v. Brewer · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles · United States v. Dane · United States v. Strada
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he court must 1) designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated; 2) find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable; and 3) find that need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Modtland · State v. Hlavac“"(a) Violation of a condition is both a necessary and a sufficient ground for the revocation of probation. Revocation followed by imprisonment should not be the disposition, however, unless the court finds on the basis of the original offense and the intervening conduct of the offender that: “(i) confinement is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by the offender; or "(ii) the offender is in need of correctional treatment which can most effectively be provided if he is confined; or “(iii) it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if probation were not revoked."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he purpose of probation is rehabilitation and revocation should be used only as a last resort when treatment has failed. There must be a balancing of the probationer’s interest in freedom and the state’s interest in insuring his rehabilitation and the public safety.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Moot · State v. By
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.