State v. Sorensen’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2004
10 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 North Carolina v. Pearce · Chess v. Smith · State v. Sorensen
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) Where a conviction or sentence has been set aside on direct review or on collateral attack, the court shall not impose a new sentence for the same offense or for a different offense based on the same con-duet which is more severe than the prior sentence less the portion of the prior sentence previously satisfied. (2) This section does not apply when: (a) the increased sentence is based on facts which were not known to the court at the time of the original sentence, and the court affirmatively places on the record the facts which provide the basis for the increased sentence; or (b) a defendant enters into a plea agreement with the prosecution and later sue-cessfully moves to invalidate his conviction, in which case the defendant and the prosecution stand in the same position as though the plea bargain, conviction, and sentence had never occurred.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bakalov · State v. Samora“[Section 76-8-201] means that no new element of sentence can be added and that no element can be augmented in magnitude. It also precludes justifying an increase in one element of a sentence by reference to a decrease in another element (in this case, elimination of restitution while increasing actual time to be served). This is because the possibility of such a tradeoff could act as a deterrent to appeal by an individual defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Samora · State v. Mast“by imposing on a defendant who demonstrates the error of his conviction the risk that he may be penalized with a harsher sentence for having done so.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Samora · State v. Samora
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.