Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 337 N.W.2d 490 - State v. Pappas

State v. Pappas’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 2019

18 state decisions

801983199020002010decided

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 State v. Morrison · State v. Hildebrand · State v. Gartin · State v. Buck · State v. Dvorsky

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

  1. “[Decisions of the trial court are cloaked with ‘a strong presumption in [their] favor’_ [T]o overcome this presumption of regularity requires an affirmative showing of abuse and the burden rests upon the party complaining. This burden is heavy, indeed, for it can only be sustained by showing abuse and prejudice. In the words of a leading treatise on discretion: ‘... the action complained of must have been unreasonable in the light of attendant circumstances — the discretion must have been exercised for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable’.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “After receiving and examining all pertinent information, including the presen-tence investigation report, if any, the court shall consider the following sentencing options. The court shall determine which of them is authorized by law for the offense, and of the authorized sentences, which of them or which combination of them, in the discretion of the court, will provide maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the defendant, and for the protection of the community from further offenses by the defendant and others. At the time fixed by the court for pronouncement of judgment and sentence, the court shall act accordingly: 1. If authorized by section 907.3, the court may defer judgment and sentence for an indefinite period in accordance with chapter 907. 2. If the defendant is not an habitual offender as defined by section 902.8, the court may pronounce judgment and impose a fine. 3. The court may pronounce judgment and impose a fine or sentence the defendant to confinement, or both, and suspend the execution of the sentence or any part of it as provided in chapter 907. 4. The court may pronounce judgment and impose a fine or sentence the defendant to confinement, or both. 5. If authorized by section 907.3, the court may defer the sentence and assign the defendant to the judicial district department of correctional services. 6. The court may pronounce judgment and sentence the defendant to confine ment and then reconsider the sentence as provided by section 902.4 or 903.2. ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The Court’s reasons for this sentence include the following, and the Court’s sentence is based on the following: The age of this defendant, the defendant’s prior record, 'the defendant’s employment circumstances, the defendant’s family circumstances, the nature of the offense committed and the resultant harm to any victim of the offense, whether or not force or a weapon was used in the commission of this offense or whether it was a matter purely of deception, the financial circumstances surrounding the matter, the defendant’s need for rehabilitation and his potential for rehabilitation, the necessity of protecting this community from further offense by this defendant or others of the same — offenses of the same nature.”
    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.