State v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently April 1992 · most notably State v. Wolfe (1978), State v. Moore (1956)
26 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 87 Cal. App. 482 - People v. Jones · 16 Cal. App. 2d 606 - People v. Blankenship · 106 Cal. App. 609 - People v. Payne · State v. O'DELL · 33 Cal. App. 2d 424 - People v. Wiley
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Appellant was entitled to have the court consider all these facts in exercising its discretion in the determination of whether the application of appellant for probation should be granted. It was error for the trial judge not to consider the same, and to base his refusal of appellant's application for probation solely upon the action of the jury. * * * The trial court must exercise this judicial discretion in a lawful and legal manner. He must give consideration to the application and grant or deny the same in the exercise of a sound, legal discretion. The refusal of the application must not be arbitrary and cannot be based upon mere whim or caprice nor upon any ground not sanctioned by the law."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Gillespie v. State · State v. Wolfe““ * * * In considering an application for probation the court must also consider, among other things, the showing made as to whether the defendant is a first offender, as to his previous character and actions, and as to whether it reasonably appears that defendant will abide by the terms of his probation and may be reasonably expected to be rehabilitated; and should also consider the interests of society.” At 77 Idaho 118 , 289 P.2d 316 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gish · State v. Moore““Sec. 19-2601, I.C., which extends to district courts the power to reduce the sentence provided by statute * * * or to suspend the execution of the judgment, or the pronouncement of sentence, or to withhold judgment * * * at his discretion, is a humane provision, permitting the court, in proper instances, to exercise clemency in imposing sentence. The purpose of the statute is the * * * rehabilitation of a defendant, * * * and to give him an opportunity to reform and take his proper place in society.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Freeman
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.