Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 124 Ariz. 212 - State v. Reese

State v. Reese’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
5
states following
May 2024
most recently cited

47 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Walczak v. State (1985), State v. Phillips (1987)

47 state decisions

280197919801990200020102020decided

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 15 Cal. 3d 481 - People v. Lent · 17 Cal. 3d 614 - People v. Richards · Shenah v. Henderson · State v. Garner · Redewill v. Superior Court

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

  1. “A judge may infer from a jury verdict of guilt ... that a defendant is liable to the crime victim. But a trial court cannot properly conclude that the defendant owes money to a third party for other unproved or disproved crimes or conduct. A party sued civilly has important due process rights, including ... a right to a trial by jury on the specific issues of liability and damages.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Under our system it would be untenable to incarcerate or impose a fine upon a defendant without an adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law. Although restitution to a victim of crime is not a criminal punishment exacted by the state, it must nevertheless rest upon due process of law. Therefore, it is equally untenable to impose a requirement of restitution upon a defendant whose responsibility for the crime has neither been admitted nor established in accordance with due process. The requirement that a defendant make restitution under such circumstances would reduce our system of justice to a potentially dangerous facade and convert the criminal court into a collection agency with none of the requirements of due process found even in a civil money judgment proceeding.””
    2 later decisions 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.