State v. Petersen’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2014
14 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 98 Tex. Crim. 544 - Ex Parte Ralph Lawson · State v. Azzone · Chaney v. Ciccone · 154 Tex. Crim. 112 - Ex Parte Spears · In Re Carey
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When separate sentences of imprisonment are imposed on a defendant for two or more crimes, whether charged in a single indictment or information or separately, or when a person who is under sentence of imprisonment in this state is being sentenced to imprisonment for another crime committed prior to or while subject to such former sentence, the court in the later sentences shall specify whether the sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively. If the court does not so specify, the sentences shall run concurrently.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hahn · State v. Wakefield“A consecutive sentence is one which does not begin to run until the expiration of the term of the prior sentence.” State v. Petersen, 305 Minn. 478, 480-81 , 235 N.W.2d 801, 803 (1975). By contrast, concurrent sentences”
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.