v. Weeks’s Empirical Analysis
2020
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Crooks v. Harrelson · Abarca v. People No. 13SC750, Hill v. People No. 14SC3, Medrano-Bustamante v. People No. 14SC7, People v. Smoots · People v. Smith · People v. Gillett · Department of Transportation v. City of Idaho Springs
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that section 18-1.3-603 (1) (b) , C.R.S. ( 2019 ) , mandates that the trial court order a specific amount of restitution within ninety-one days of conviction, unless good cause exists to extend that deadline. 2. Assuming the ninety-one-day deadline in section 18-1.3-603 (1) (b) , C.R.S. ( 2019 ) , refers to the court 's obligation to determine the restitution amount, whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that the trial court 's extension of the prosecution 's deadline under section 18-1.3-603 (2) , C.R.S. ( 2019 ) , was insufficient to establish "good cause" for the court 's extension of its own deadline for issuing a restitution order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“if the prosecution needs the full ninety-one days (or more) to complete its request for restitution under section 18-1.3-603 (2) , that in itself could constitute 'good cause' for the trial court to extend its restitution ruling beyond the ninety-one-day deadline under section 18-1.3-603 (1) (b) .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“refers to the district court 's obligation to order a specific amount of restitution within ninety-one days, unless good cause exists to extend [it] .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.