Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 99 Idaho 354 - State v. Phillips

State v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2024

18 state decisions

90197819801990200020102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Banks v. Georgia · United States v. Stevens · James C. Henley v. D. M. Heritage, Warden, U.S. Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia · State v. Ditmars

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

  1. “"[A] court's oral pronouncement of sentence is binding. Under I.C.R. 32(b) the written judgment of conviction shall set forth the plea, the verdict or findings, and the adjudication and sentence. The sentence which is set forth in the judgment, however, must be the sentence which was imposed and which was imposed in the presence of the defendant. I.C.R. 43 specifically provides for defendant's presence at imposition of sentence, which presence can only be excused in misdemeanor cases." Id. at 356 , 581 P.2d at 1175 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “"[W]e decline to rely upon the written judgment and sentence. I.C.R. 32 and 43 make clear that the defendant must be afforded certain rights at the sentencing stage. If we were to rely upon the written sentence here, those rights could be construed to have been denied the appellant, i.e., the right to be personally present, to be represented by counsel, to speak in his own behalf and to present information in mitigation." Id. at 355 , 581 P.2d at 1174 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]t would ask too much that a trial judge be required to possess instant recall as to the state of the record of every case which has passed before him. The prosecuting attorney should ... make certain that judgments of conviction placed before the trial court for signature accurately reflect the sentences which the court has imposed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.