Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 698 P2D 1198 - Pears v. State

Pears v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
5
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

65 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably State v. Andrews (1985), State v. Woolery (1989)

65 state decisions

39019851990200020102020decided

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 State v. Chaney · Page v. State · Neitzel v. State · Burleson v. State · Troyer 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(a) A person commits the crime of murder in the second degree if (1) with intent to cause serious physical injury to another person or knowing that the conduct is substantially certain to cause death or serious physical injury to another person, the person causes the death of any person.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(a) A person commits the crime of murder in the second degree if [[Image here]] (2) the person intentionally performs an act that results in the death of another person under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “There is a growing consensus that rehabilitation of an offender, as distinct from his deterrence, should not serve as a basis for extending a prison term or selecting imprisonment as a sentence. See ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures § 18-2.2 at 18.57 (Approved Draft 1979). “The view of rehabilitation taken by these standards involves a critical distinction: rehabilitation is a proper goal of corrections but an improper justification for it. It is desirable that offenders have access to treatment but undesirable that they be sentenced to prison for treatment.” (Emphasis added.) Id. § 18-2.6, at 18.141.”
    2 later decisions 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.