Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 UT 35 - State v. Hollen

State v. Hollen’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
2
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably State v. Clopten (2009), State v. Perea (2013)

28 state decisions

170200220102020decided

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. Ramirez · State v. Rimmasch · State v. Larsen · State v. Long

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

  1. “'The trial court has wide discretion in determining the admissibility of expert testimony, and such decisions are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Under this standard, we will not reverse [a decision to admit or exclude expert testimony] unless the decision exceeds the limits of reasonability.'”
    17 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact at issue.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) [The opportunity of the witness to view the actor during the event; (2) the witness's degree of attention to the actor at the time of the event; (8) the witness's capacity to observe the event, including his or her physical and mental acuity; (4) whether the witness's identification was made spontaneously 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

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.