green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.3 score
“the severity of punishment ... can be explained by the degree to which the legislature has deplored this crime.”
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lamphere v. State
the severity of punishment ... can be explained by the degree to which the legislature has deplored this crime.
discussed
Cited "see"
Fleener v. State
See Vacendak v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 101, 109 , 340 N.E.2d 352, 357 , cert. denied, (1976) 429 U.S. 851 , 97 S.Ct. 141 , 50 L.Ed.2d 125 ; DeShone v. State, (1934) 207 Ind. 380, 386 , 193 N.E. 223, 225 .
cited
Cited "see"
Dragon v. State
See Vacendak v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 101 , 340 N.E.2d 352 , cert. denied 429 U.S. 851 , 97 S.Ct. 141 , 50 L.Ed.2d 125 ; Tewell v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 88 , 339 N.E.2d 792 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Lundberg
The Fourth Circuit, in response to this argument, noted: “It is doubtful that Rule 1406(a) was intended to apply where the two sentences in question have been imposed by different sovereigns. ‘Where different courts have sentenced [a person] for different offenses to be served at separate and distinct institutions,’ Pennsylvania courts presume ‘that the sentences are to run consecutively,’ and Rule 1406(a) does not apply.” Id. at 362 , n. 6 (citing Pfeiffer, supra); see also Gomori v. Arnold, 533 F.2d 871, 875 (3d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 851 , 97 S.Ct. 140 , 50 L.Ed.2d 12…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lewis Thomas v. Patrick Whalen
(2×)
Commonwealth v. Pfeiffer, 396 Pa.Super. 641, 646 , 579 A.2d 897, 900 (1990); see also Gomori v. Arnold, 533 F.2d 871, 875 (3d Cir.) (holding that the "rule of presumptive concurrency of sentences, in the absence of a specific directive that sentences be served consecutively, does not apply where one sentence is imposed by a federal court and the other by a state court"), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 851 , 97 S.Ct. 140 , 50 L.Ed.2d 125 (1976) In any event, contrary to the suggestion of the concurrence, a federal sentencing court has no obligation to implement or otherwise to respect a state court's o…
Vacendak
v.
Indiana
v.
Indiana
No. 75-6893.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 1976.
Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Iowa (1)
Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.