Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 676 NE2D 352 - Jordan v. State

Jordan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
3
states following
April 2013
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 2013

6 state decisions

40199720002010decided

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 United States v. Broce · Menna v. New York · White v. State · Randall v. State · Moore 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the wisest in that it forecloses the possibility that Jordan will be set free in the event the State does not have sufficient evidence to reprosecute a ten year old murder case.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A plea of guilty and the ensuing conviction comprehend all of the factual and legal elements necessary to sustain a binding, final judgment of guilt and a lawful sentence. Accordingly, when the judgment of conviction upon a guilty plea has become final and the offender seeks to reopen the proceeding, the inquiry is ordinarily confined to whether the underlying plea was both counseled and voluntary. If the answer is in the affirmative then the conviction and the plea, as a general rule, foreclose the collateral attack.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “'In both Sinn and T hompson the plea agreement called for the imposition of consecutive sentences when the court was without the statutory authority to impose consecutive sentences. Because there was no statutory authority for the judge to impose consecutive sentences, the fact the consecutive sentences were imposed pursuant to a plea agreement could not be held to "waive" the error. The judge could not sentence the defendants to the terms provided in the plea agreement.”
    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.