Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2001 UT App 13 - State v. Stringham

2001 UT App 13 - State v. Stringham’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2024

19 state decisions

110200120102020decided

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 Mabry v. Johnson · Mabry v. Johnson · United States v. Nivica · United States v. Ocanas · State v. Hamilton

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

  1. “Failure to give requested jury instructions constitutes reversible error only if their omission tends to mislead the jury to the prejudice of the complaining party or insufficiently or erroneously advises the jury on the law.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Whether the trial court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes error is a question of law, which we ... review for correctness.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “of the victim into account as part of the cireumstances it considered in denying Sanchez's request to merge his convictions. 1 16 We therefore conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing to merge San-° chez's kidnapping and assault convictions. 4 II. Proposed Jury Instruction 117 Sanchez next argues that the trial court erred when it refused to give a supplemental jury instruction he proposed.”
    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.