Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1999 UT 59 - State v. Saunders

State v. Saunders’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
6
states following
January 2026
most recently cited

79 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably State v. Ceballos (2003), State v. Maestas (2012)

79 state decisions

3201999200020102020decided

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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Berger v. United States · State v. Dunn · State v. Menzies · State v. Tillman

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

  1. “ease with which all issues of bias can be dispensed by the simple expedient of replacing a questionable juror with another whose neutrality is not open to question.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “(i) An error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “We now make emphatically clear that a juror's statement alone that he or she can decide a case fairly pursuant to the law given by the trial court is not a sufficient basis for qualifying a juror to sit when the prospective juror's answers provide evidence of possible bias and the trial court does not allow further questions designed to probe the extent and the depth of the bias. Preventing such further inquiry and concluding the issue by taking a juror's conclusory statement that he or she will not be affected by a particular attitude or will decide the case fairly is not sufficient.”
    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.