Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2001 UT 4 - State v. Hoffhine

State v. Hoffhine’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 2020

9 state decisions

70200120102020decided

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 State v. Litherland · State v. Ramirez · State v. James · State v. Long · State v. Workman

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

  1. “(1) the opportunity of the witness to view the actor during the event; (2) the witness' degree of attention to the actor at the time of the event; (8) the witness' capacity to observe the event, including his or her physical and mental acuity; (4) whether the witness' identification was made spon-tancously and remained consistent thereafter, or whether it was the product of suggestion; and (5) the nature of the event being observed and the likelihood that the witness would perceive, remember and relate it correctly.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The standard for determining whether a trial court correctly granted or denied a motion for arrest of judgment is the same standard appellate courts apply in determining whether a jury verdict should be set aside for insufficient evidence. Under that standard a trial court may arrest a jury verdict when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, is so inconclusive or so inherently improbable as to an element of the crime that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt as to that element.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “consider both the substance of the proffered testimony and the testimony's probable weight”
    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.