Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 UT 114 - State v. Hansen

State v. Hansen’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
November 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · State v. Holgate · State v. Emmett · State v. Saunders · Buehner Block Co. v. UWC ASSOCIATES

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

  1. “[When a court properly defers ruling on an issue that has been raised and plainly instructs the objecting party to re-raise the issue at a specific later time if its objection remains, ... [and] if no such later objection is made, the party has not presented [the issue] to the trial court in a manner sufficient to obtain a ruling thereon, thereby preserving the issue for review.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “'presented to the trial court in a manner sufficient to obtain a ruling thereon,' thereby preserving the issue for review.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “When a party fails to preserve an issue for appeal, we will address the issue only if (1) the appellant establishes that the district court committed "plain error," (2) "exceptional cireumstances" exist, or (8) in some situations, if the appellant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to preserve the issue.”
    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.