Harness v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
92 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably State v. Fischer (2010), Smith v. State (2003)
92 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 Bangs v. State · Bunch v. State · Lambert v. State · Windsor v. State · Short 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(d) If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a condition of his suspension or probation, it may |srevoke the suspension or probation at any time prior to the expiration of the period of suspension or probation. [[Image here]] (f)(1) (A) If a court revokes a suspension or probation, the court may enter a judgment or conviction and may impose a sentence on the defendant that might have been imposed originally for the offense of which he or she was found guilty.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A sentence is void or illegal when the trial court lacks the authority to impose it. Sentencing in Arkansas is entirely a matter of statute . . . We have consistently held that sentencing shall not be other than in accordance with the statute in effect at the time of the commission of a crime. Where the law does not authorize the particular sentence pronounced by the trial court, that sentence is unauthorized and illegal, and the case must be reversed and remanded.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We construe criminal statutes strictly, resolving any doubts in favor of the defendant. Short v. State, 349 Ark. 492 , 79 S.W.3d 313 (2002). We construe a statute just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language, and if the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion to resort to rules of statutory interpretation. Id. In construing any statute, we place it beside other statutes relevant to the subject matter in question and ascribe meaning and effect derived from the whole. Id. However, we will not interpret a statute, even a criminal one, so as to reach an absurd conclusion that is contrary to legislative intent. Windsor v. State, 338 Ark. 649 , 1 S.W.3d 20 (1999).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Trif v. State
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.