Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1999 SD 112 - State v. Ruttman

State v. Ruttman’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
3
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Matter of Estate of Unke · State v. Tuttle · State v. Karras · City of Lennox v. Wendell

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

  1. “The substantial evidence standard ... does not apply to this proceeding. Before the trial court heard the evidence concerning restitution, [the defendant] had pleaded no contest to twelve felony counts of sales tax evasion. The question of whether he underpaid his taxes had been resolved. The only issue remaining was the amount of underpayment. As discussed previously, the standard of proof at a restitution hearing is the reasonably satisfied standard. The standard does not change regardless of the type of crime that has been committed. [[Image here]] Accordingly, we find the department’s method and its cost of goods sold percentage of 61.71 percent are clearly supported by the evidence under the reasonably satisfied standard.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.