Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 548 NW2D 252 - State v. Krotzer

State v. Krotzer’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
December 2012
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably State v. Foss (1996), State v. Mitchell (1998)

34 state decisions

210199620002010decided

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 Bordenkircher v. Hayes · Oyler v. Boles · 11 Cal. 3d 59 - People v. Superior Court (On Tai Ho) · State v. Olson · Clerk of Court's Comp. for LC v. LC Com'rs

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

  1. “However, the prosecutor’s power to file charges and prosecute an individual was not infringed upon here. As Krotzer states, the Carver County prosecutor investigated the allegations against Krotzer, filed criminal charges, obtained a guilty plea, and recommended a disposition and sentence to the court. The trial court then postponed acceptance of the plea and placed Krotzer on probation, but this did not affect the prosecutor’s carefully defined role. The final disposition of a criminal case is ultimately a matter for the presiding judge. As we stated in Olson, once the legislature has defined the range of punishments for a particular offense, it cannot ‘condition the imposition of the sen- tenee by the court upon the prior approval of the prosecutor.’”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “justice would not be served by giving Krotzer a criminal record”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “it was not improper for the district court in this case to follow the sentencing options permitted by section 152.18, and to order Krotzer to serve 60 days in jail as a condition of his 60 months on probation.”
    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.