Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 604 A.2d 839 - Mayes v. State

Mayes v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
3
states following
June 2011
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably State v. Ford (1999), State v. Ford (1999)

33 state decisions

190199220002010decided

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 Lockett v. Ohio · Williams v. People of State of New York · United States v. Tucker · Townsend v. Burke · Patterson v. United States

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

  1. “is `false or unreliable' if it lacks `some minimal indicium of reliability beyond mere allegation.' " United States v. Ibarra, 737 F.2d 825, 827 (9th Cir.1984) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Baylin, 696 F.2d 1030, 1040 (3d Cir.1982)). See also United States v. Ward, 68 F.3d 146, 149 (6th Cir. 1995); United States v. Fatico, 458 F.Supp. 388, 397-98 (E.D.N.Y.1978) (misinformation, misunderstanding, or material false assumptions "as to any facts relevant to sentencing, renders the entire sentencing procedure invalid as a violation of due process”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Thus, in reviewing a sentence within statutory limits, this Court will not find error of law or abuse of discretion unless it is clear from the record below that a sentence has been imposed on the basis of demonstrably false information or information lacking a minimal indicium of reliability. [Citations omitted.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “3. The sentencing standards are considered voluntary and nonbinding; thus, no party to a criminal case has any legal or constitutional right to appeal to any court a statutorily authorized sentence which does not conform to the sentencing standards.”
    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.