Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 98 Idaho 472 - State v. Ditmars

State v. Ditmars’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
3
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably State v. Wolfe (1978), Tweedy v. State (2004)

33 state decisions

140197719801990200020102020decided

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 Thomas v. Hunter · State v. Moore · Kriebel v. United States · State v. Edelblute · State v. Carver

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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Suspend the execution of the judgment at any time during the first one hundred eighty (180) days of a sentence to the custody of the state board of correction. The court shall retain jurisdiction over the prisoner for the first one hundred eighty (180) days or, if the prisoner is a juvenile, until the juvenile reaches twenty-one (21) years of age. The prisoner will remain committed to the board of correction if not affirmatively placed on probation by the court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Here, the "act of sentencing" occurred on November 18. By retaining jurisdiction for 120 days pursuant to I.C. § 19-2601(4), the court then suspended the execution of the already imposed sentence. The order of March 17, 1976 thus effectuated the execution of the sentence... (Emphasis added.) 98 Idaho at 474, 567 P.2d at 19 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[A] hearing must be provided to prevent an “arbitrary deprivation of a probationer’s liberty.” When such concern is not present, however, a hearing need not be afforded the defendant. Such is the case here. The termination of the statutory-120 day period does in no sense constitute an arbitrary deprivation of liberty. .”
    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.