State v. Piazza’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably State v. Williams (2001), Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins. Co. (1997)
1 federal appellate · 69 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 Bifulco v. United States · Huddleston v. United States · Dunn v. United States · 22 Utah 2d 343 - State v. Shondel · 406 So. 2d 1300 - State v. LeCompte
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]here is a presumption against implied repeal, based on the theory that the legislature envisions the whole body of law when it enacts new legislation.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] necessary concomitant of the due process requirement of certainty in the definition of criminal conduct is -the requirement that the penalty portion of a statute be definite. State v. Shondel, 22 Utah 2d 343 , 453 P.2d 146 (1969); compare State v. LeCompte, 406 So.2d 1300 (La.1981) (on original hearing). When the statutory penalty for a crime is indefinite, the accused will be forced to speculate on the range of sentence to which he will be exposed upon conviction and will be unable to | ¿intelligently evaluate developments in the plea bargaining process. To resolve the conflict when a criminal statute provides inconsistent penalties, or when two or more interpretations are possible, the rule of lenity directs the court to impose the least severe penalty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The principle of lenity developed on the basis that a person should not be criminally punished unless the law has provided a fair warning of what conduct will be considered criminal. 3 N. Singer, at § 59.04. The rule does not merely reflect a convenient maxim of statutory construction, but is based on the fundamental principle of due process that no person should be forced to speculate whether his conduct is prohibited. Dunn v. United States , 442 U.S. 100 , 99 S.Ct. 2190 , 60 L.Ed.2d 743 (1979). Questions concerning the ambit of a criminal statute should be resolved in favor of lenity. Huddleston v. United States , 415 U.S. 814 , 94 S.Ct. 1262 , 39 L.Ed.2d 782 (1974).”
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.