Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 81 N.M. 445 - State v. Murray

State v. Murray’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
4
states following
October 2008
most recently cited

54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently October 2008 · most notably State v. Lard (1974), State v. Vigil (1973)

54 state decisions

2001970198019902000decided

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 Boykin v. Alabama · McCarthy v. United States · Shelton v. United States Board of Parole · State v. Brusenhan · Neller 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If it is found that a warrant for the return of a probationer cannot be served, the probationer is a fugitive from justice. After hearing upon return, if it appears that he has violated the provisions of his release, the court shall determine whether the time from the date of violation to the date of his arrest, or any part of it, shall be counted as time served on probation.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “If there has been unreasonable delay in the issuance and execution of a warrant against a probation violator whose whereabouts is known or could be known with reasonable diligence, and the violator’s return is possible, the probation authorities, as a matter of law * * * have waived defendant’s violations.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]he trial court’s discretion to credit or disallow probation time from violation to arrest depends upon defendant being a fugitive from justice. Whether defendant was a fugitive requires a determination that the “ * * * warrant for the return * * * [of defendant] cannot be served. * * * ””
    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.