Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 590 A2D 149 - State v. Lewis

State v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
April 2010
most recently cited

30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently April 2010 · most notably State v. Hewey (1993), State v. Reese (2010)

30 state decisions

240199120002010decided

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 Franklin Property Trust v. Foresite, Inc. · State v. Hallowell · State v. Constantine

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

  1. “[T]he intent was to make available two discrete ranges of sentences for Class A crimes. For the majority of such crimes the sentence imposed should be the same as it would have been under the twenty-year limit. Only for the most heinous and violent crimes committed against a person should the court in its discretion consider imposing a basic sentence within the expanded range of twenty to forty years.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “1. Sentence correction. To correct a sentence which is excessive in length, having regard to the nature of the offense, the character of the offender and the protection of the public interest; 2. Promote respect for law. To promote respect for law by correcting abuses of the sentencing power and by increasing the fairness of the sentencing process; 3. Rehabilitation. To facilitate the possible rehabilitation of an offender by reducing manifest and unwarranted inequalities among the sentences of comparable offenders; and 4. Sentencing criteria. To promote the development and application of criteria for sentencing which are both rational and just.”
    2 later decisions 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.