Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 564 A2D 21 - Sumpter v. United States

Sumpter v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
June 2015
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 2015

10 state decisions

501989199020002010decided

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 North Carolina v. Alford · Maleng v. Cook · Commonwealth v. Sawicki · Wright v. United States · 89 Wash. 2d 720 - State v. Mortrud

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

  1. “(a) If a child on probation incident to an adjudication of delinquency or need of su pervision violates any term of his probation he may be proceeded against in a probation revocation hearing. (d) If a child is found to have violated the terms of his probation, the Division may modify the terms and conditions of the probation order, extend the period of probation, or enter any other order of disposition specified in section 16-2320 for a delinquent child. Section 16-2320(c), in turn, provides, as relevant: If a child is found to be delinquent ... the Division exercising juvenile jurisdiction ... may order any of the following dispositions which will be in the best interest of the child: (1) Any disposition authorized by subsection (a) of this section (other than paragraphs 3(A) and (5) thereof). (2) Transfer of legal custody to a public agency for the care of delinquent children. (3)Probation under such conditions and limitations as the Division may prescribe, including but not limited to the completion of parenting classes or family counseling in cases where either or both was ordered by the Division. [Emphasis added.]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[Tjoday we make explicit what has previously been implicit in our decisions and hold that, under D.C.Code § 24-104, a trial court cannot revoke probation after the expiration of the probationary term originally imposed, unless the court extends the period of probation, or otherwise acts to preserve its jurisdiction, during the probationary term.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.