Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 456 A.2d 742 - State v. Byrnes

State v. Byrnes’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
2
states following
November 2013
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably Ouimette v. Moran (1991), Newport Shipyard, Inc. v. Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights (1984)

2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

1101983199020002010decided

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 United States v. Mendoza · State v. Fortes · United States v. Colvin · State v. Byrnes · State v. MacArelli

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

  1. ““The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. The court may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner and it may reduce any sentence within one hundred twenty (120) days after the sentence is imposed, or within one hundred twenty (120) days after receipt by the court of a mandate of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island issued upon affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of the appeal, or within one hundred twenty (120) days after receipt by the court of a mandate or order of the Supreme Court of the United States issued upon affirmance of the judgment, dismissal of the appeal, or denial of a writ of certiorari. The court may reduce a sentence, the execution of which has been suspended, upon revocation of probation.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It is significant for purposes of this review also to point out that on a motion for reduction of sentence, the sentencing court has the discretion to decide whether to hear testimony or arguments. Furthermore, the court need not state its reasons for granting or denying the motion. If the court does decide to reduce the sentence, the defendant need not be granted the right of allocution, nor need he or she even be present when the reduced sentence is imposed. (Footnote omitted.) 3 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal § 586 at 405-07 (1982).””
    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.