Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 549 SW2D 881 - Wraggs v. State

Wraggs v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently January 2019

16 state decisions

6019771980199020002010decided

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

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 7237

Relies on Ashe v. Swenson · United States v. Tucker · Leary v. United States · Townsend v. Burke · United States v. Covington

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

  1. “The pertinent question is whether the sentence was predicated on misinformation; whether the sentence might have been different if the sentencing judge had known that at least two of appellant's previous convictions had been illegally obtained.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A sentence passed on the basis of a materially false foundation lacks due process of law and entitles the defendant to a reconsideration of the question of punishment in the light of the true facts, regardless of the eventual outcome.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “It is not for us to say that this change [in the prior convictions] would not influence, although not compel, a sentencing judge to render a lesser sentence. This is true even though, as [the sentencing judge] has stated, the 13-year sentence was within legal limits and his discretion; it was not based upon prior convictions which were unconstitutional and was justified and supported by the severity of the crime of assault with intent to main with malice.”
    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.