Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2001 UT 58 - State v. Mead

State v. Mead’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
4
states following
January 2026
most recently cited

42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably State v. Houston (2015), State v. Fedorowicz (2002)

42 state decisions

230200120102020decided

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 Greer v. Miller · State v. Bishop · State v. Litherland · State v. Verde · State v. Rimmasch

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

  1. “'s sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It is the exclusive function of the jury to weigh the evidence and to determine credibility of the witnesses. So long as there is some evidence, including reasonable inferences, from which findings of all the requisite elements of the crime can be reasonably made, our inquiry stops.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or (2) accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible.... This rule also does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.”
    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.