Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 313 ARK 677 - State v. Gaddy

State v. Gaddy’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
February 2012
most recently cited

9 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Irons v. State · Pettit v. State · Vagi v. State

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

  1. “The Court: All right. And the recommendation is three years probation. I’m just a little surprised by that on these facts? The officers agreed to it? Prosecutor: Yes, Your Honor, they did. Defense Counsel: Well— The Court: No, you don’t need to approach. Defense Counsel: Well, I was going to tell you why. The Court: Well I understand that’s not necessary. I’ll accept the plea or the recommendation. Okay. Mr. Gaddy, this is your understanding of the disposition of the case, what you’ve set here, three years probation, two hundred dollar fíne and costs and ex-pungement under Act 3467? Do you understand that sir? KMr. Gaddy: Yes. The Court: And that’s what you agreed to do? Mr. Gaddy: Uh huh. The Court: Okay. I’m going to grant, carry out your motion to grant the nol pros and I’ve done that and I’m going to grant the motion to reduce this to possession upon acceptance of your plea of guilty. Let me ask you to raise your right hand please, Mr. Gad-dy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The Court: I have a plea statement here and there’s a recommendation. [tPROSECUTOR: Your honor, that’s correct. The State would have a couple of preliminary motions as to Mr. Gaddy if you would like for me to take them up now. The Court: Yes, I wish you would please. Prosecutor: The State would move in 91-2562 1 to nol pros. The Court: All right. Prosecutor: And in 91-1734, 2 State would amend Count 1 to be possession of cocaine rather than possession with intent to deliver.”
    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.