Ramirez v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 2018
15 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 Frisbie v. Collins · Ker v. People of the State of Illinois · Cuyler v. Adams · Newhall v. Le Breton · Brown 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The State argues because Ramirez apparently received credit against his Michigan sentence for the days he was in the Howard County Jail awaiting trial and sentencing on the Indiana drug charges, he is not entitled to also receive credit time for those days in Indiana. The State is incorrect. There is no indication the sentences in [the Indiana drug convictions] were to run consecutively to the Michigan sentence. Because the Michigan and Indiana sentences must therefore be assumed to be concurrent, it would appear Ramirez was entitled to have the 322 days [he spent in the Howard County Jail awaiting trial and sentencing on the Indiana drug charges] credited to both his Michigan sentence and to the aggregate of the two Indiana sentences.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"The record, however, contains the pre-sentence investigation report, and it recites Defendant's lengthy criminal history .... Given the opportunity, by advisement in the Motion to Correct Errors, the trial court could easily have provided a statement evidencing that the enhancement of the sentence was justifiable. The record affirmatively discloses that the sentence is not manifestly unreasonable in light of Defendant's criminal , record. The error is, therefore, not fundamental. Rather, it appears that defense counsel merely abandoned a potential but meritless assignment of error."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carman v. State“an extradition-type hearing before the request for temporary custody is honored ...,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Daher 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.