State v. Ludemann’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
October 2003
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Sisco · Brainard v. State · State v. Worley · State v. Thompson · State v. Kirchoff
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The defendant’s] decision to enter a plea did not relieve the trial court of its duty to inform him of the nature of the offense, including the element of specific intent. Additionally, a “court may not abrogate or delegate to anyone, including the attorney for the accused, the duty to determine defendant’s knowledge of the charge, appreciation of legal consequences of a guilty plea, whether it is voluntarily entered, or [the] existence of facts supporting it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Loye
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.