Hopkinson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 2004
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 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 Gregg v. Georgia · Jones v. Howard · National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Idaho · Justus v. Florida · Hopkinson 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Burch v. State“[A] district judge has no jurisdiction to reduce a death sentence under Rule 36 [now Rule 35], W.R.Cr.P., adopted by this Court, because to do so would be in direct conflict with the legislative mandate, under the facts and background of the case now before us. We do not deny the district court’s authority to set aside an illegal or illegally imposed death sentence within the terms of Rule 36 ... but that is not the case here.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Burch v. State“[ujnless the jury trying the case recommends the death sentence in its verdict, the judge shall not sentence the defendant to death.... Where a recommendation of death is made, the court shall sentence the defendant to death.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Burch v. State
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.