State v. Nobriga’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
2 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably State v. Freitas (1979), State v. Kotis (1999)
2 district · 46 state decisions
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 Commonwealth Ex Rel. Hendrickson v. Myers · People v. McFarlin · Berfield v. State · 182 Pa. Super. 169 - Commonwealth ex rel. Hendrickson v. Myers · 41 Mich. App. 116 - People v. McFarlin
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he legislature was not unmindful of the dangers posed to the defendant in terms of those portions of the report which might be misleading, incomplete, or inaccurate. Thus, [in HRS § 706-604,] the legislature afforded the defendant an opportunity to respond to the presentence report, and more importantly, an opportunity to rebut those sections in question.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lessary · State v. Kahawai“that a clear distinction exists between the adversary proceeding in court and the sentencing process. During the latter, the presiding judge is no longer dealing with the process of determining factual issues, that is, the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but rather must concern himself [or herself] with “imposing a fair, proper, and just sentence.” Commonwealth ex rel. Hendrickson v. Meyers, 393 Pa. 224, 228 , 144 A.2d 367 , aff'g 182 Pa. Super. 169 , 126 A.2d 485 (1958)[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“§ 706-600 Sentence in accordance with this chapter. No sentence shall be imposed otherwise than in accordance with this chapter. § 706-601 Pre-sentence diagnosis and report. (1) The court shall order a pre-sentence correctional diagnosis of the defendant and accord due consideration to a written report of the diagnosis before imposing sentence where: (a) The defendant has been convicted of a felony; or (b) The defendant is less than twenty-two years of age and has been convicted of a crime. (2) The court may order a pre-sentence diagnosis in any other case. (3) With the consent of the court, the requirement of a pre-sentence diagnosis may be waived by agreement of both the defendant and the prosecuting attorney. § 706-602 Pre-sentence diagnosis, notice to victims, and report. (1) The pre-sentence diagnosis and report shall be made by personnel assigned to the court, intake service center or other agency designated by the court and shall include: (a) An analysis of the circumstances attending the commission of the crime; (b) The defendant's history of delinquency or criminality, physical and mental condition, family situation and background, economic status and capacity to make restitution or to make reparation to the victim or victims of the defendant's crimes for loss or damage caused thereby, education, occupation, and personal habits; (c) Information made available by the victim or other source concerning the effect that the crime committed by the defendant has had upon sa”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Sinagoga
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.