Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Lacquement v. State (1982), Citizens Coalition for Tort Reform, Inc. v. McAlpine (1991)
38 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 Ex parte Lange · United States v. Benz · 8 Cal. 3d 410 - In Re Lynch · 10 Cal. 3d 910 - In Re Foss · United States v. Ellenbogen
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Correction or Reduction of Sentence. The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. The court may reduce a sentence within 120 days after sentence is imposed, or within 120 days after the effective date of the judgment or receipt by the court of either a mandate issued upon affirmance of the judgment or an order of dismissal of the appeal, or within 120 days after receipt of an order of the supreme court of the state or of the United States denying application for relief. The court shall retain jurisdiction under this paragraph notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal. If such a motion is filed during the pendency of a sentence appeal, the proceedings on that sentence appeal shall be automatically stayed upon the filing of a copy of the motion with the court in which the sentence appeal is pending. The stay shall remain in effect until the motion is decided. A motion made under this paragraph must be made in the original criminal case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Wheeles v. State · Davis v. State“In Green v. State, 390 P.2d 433, 435 (Alaska 1964), this court articulated the following test for determining whether a particular punishment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment: Only those punishments which are cruel and unusual in the sense that they are inhuman or barbarous, or so disproportionate to the offense committed as to be completely arbitrary and shocking to the sense of justice may be stricken as violating the due process [and cruel and unusual punishment] clauses....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“These rules are designed to facilitate business and advance justice. They may be relaxed or dispensed with by the court in any case where it shall be manifest to the court that a strict adherence to them will work injustice.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Wheeles v. State · Cook v. State
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.