Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 42 N.J. 62 - State v. Maxey

State v. Maxey’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
7
states following
November 2002
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently November 2002 · most notably State v. Yarbough (1985), State v. SINCLAIR (1967)

38 state decisions

11019641970198019902000decided

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. White · Brown v. State · Commonwealth v. Elliott · Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. Group of Institutional Investors · 9 N.J. Super. 511 - In Re Application of Fitzpatrick

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

  1. ““By gearing a prisoner’s eligibility for parole to the length and number of consecutive sentences imposed by the trial judge, the Legislature has recognized the roll [sic] played by the trial judge in administering the penal laws of this State. The Legislature has thus left remaining in the judiciary the power and duty of establishing the minimum time that a defendant must spend in prison before the Parole Board can consider him eligible for release on parole.... “In the case at bar the trial judge registered natural abhorrence at the heinousness of the murders committed by defendant. His purpose, and the effect of his sentence, was to say that for the purpose of punishing defendant and deterring others defendant should for each murder remain in prison for the minimum statutory time allowed for each sentence. We conceive of no reason why a man who has been found guilty of two murders should necessarily receive the benefit of the same parole eligibility as a man who has committed only one murder, when a man who had committed two lesser crimes would not necessarily receive the same parole eligibility as if he had committed only one. “In the absence of a statute expressly prohibiting the sentencing judge from exercising such discretion, we find that the power to impose consecutive life sentences resides in the trial judge.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““No prisoner shall be released on parole merely as a reward for good conduct or efficient performance of duties assigned while under sentence, but only if the board is of the opinion that there is reasonable probability that, if such prisoner is released, he will assume his proper and rightful place in society, without violation of the law, and that his release is not incompatible with the welfare of society.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he judicial power to impose consecutive sentences in this State is not founded upon statute but rather upon our common law, derived from the common law of England. * * * Consequently, our courts have the discretion and power to impose consecutive sentences for terms of years.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.