Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 622 P2D 418 - Fortin v. State

Fortin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
March 2011
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2011

10 state decisions

401981199020002010decided

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 Jones v. State · Key v. State · Montez v. State

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) Correction. — The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. Additionally the court may correct, reduce, or modify a sentence within the time and in the manner provided herein for the reduction of sentence. (b) Reduction. — A motion to reduce a sentence may be made, or the court may reduce a sentence without motion, within one year after the sentence is imposed or probation is revoked, or within one year after receipt by the court of a mandate issued upon affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of the appeal or within one year' after entry of any order or judgment of the Wyoming Supreme Court denying review of, or having the effect -of upholding, a judgment of conviction or probation revocation. The court shall determine the motion within a reasonable time. Changing a sentence from a sentence of incarceration to a grant of probation shall constitute a permissible reduction of sentence under this subdivision. The court may determine the motion with or without a hearing.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A district court’s resolution of a motion to correct or reduce a sentence is entitled to considerable deference. Montez v. State, Wyo.1979, 592 P.2d 1153 . On appeal we will not substitute our own views for those of the district court unless there is no rational basis for its conclusions. Key v. State, Wyo.1980, 616 P.2d 774 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor shall cruel or unusual punishment be inflicted.””
    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.