Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 16 Utah 2d 288 - State v. Tuttle

16 Utah 2d 288 - State v. Tuttle’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
3
states following
December 2011
most recently cited

39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably State v. Thurman (1993), State v. Deltenre (1966)

39 state decisions

110196519701980199020002010decided

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 Abel v. United States · Henry v. State of Mississippi · Zap v. United States · 193 F. Supp. 849 - United States v. Rees · Rank 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “there was no timely objection made to the evidence in question. Everything concerning such evidence was known to the defendant at the time of the preliminary hearing.... No objection was made to the evidence, nor was there any indication of a contention that there had been an illegal search. Neither then nor at the trial was there any motion to suppress. On the contrary, during the trial the defendant’s counsel in his questioning continually referred to these exhibits .... Fairness requires that if he disputed the competency of the evidence he should make his objection at the earliest reasonable opportunity. He should not be permitted to wait until the questioned evidence was before the jury and attempt to make use of it, then claim that it was not admissible. Inasmuch as he chose to conduct his examination upon the basis of this evidence[] before he stated his objection to it[] he should be deemed to have waived any such objection.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The practical exigencies of a trial render it imperative that the trial judge have the prerogative of ruling upon questions of admissibility of evidence and upon issues of fact incidental .to that purpose. For this reason, and because of his position of advantage to observe the demeanor of witnesses and other factors bearing on credibility, his ruling thereon should not be disturbed unless it clearly appears that he was in error.”
    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.