Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 325 NW2D 172 - State v. Werre

State v. Werre’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
August 1993
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Kercheval v. United States · Johnson v. United States · Friedman v. United States · Oksanen v. United States · Stidham v. United States

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

  1. ““(d) Plea Withdrawal. “(1) The court shall allow the defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty whenever the defendant, upon a timely motion for withdrawal, proves that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice. “(2) A motion for withdrawal is timely if made with due diligence, considering the nature of the allegations therein, and is not necessarily barred because made subsequent to judgment or sentence. “(3) In the absence of a showing that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice, a defendant may not withdraw a plea of guilty as a matter of right once the plea has been accepted by the court. Before sentence, the court in its discretion may allow the defendant to withdraw a plea for any fair and just reason unless the prosecution has been substantially prejudiced by reliance upon the defendant’s plea.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““A defendant seeking to withdraw his guilty plea bears the burden of proof and adjudication of the issue is solely within the trial court’s discretion. Sherburne v. United States, 433 F.2d 1350 (8th Cir.1970); Byes v. United States, 402 F.2d 492 (8th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1121 , 89 S.Ct. 999 , 22 L.Ed.2d 126 (1969); Oksanen v. United States, 362 F.2d 74 (8th Cir.1966); Stidham v. United States, 170 F.2d 294 (8th Cir.1948). Therefore, on appeal, the only question to be determined is whether or not the court abused its discretion. In State v. Hamann, 262 N.W.2d 495, 501 (N.D.1978), we enunciated the following standard: ‘In the absence of an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, its decision to deny defendant’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea will stand.’ ””
    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.