2002 UT App 333 - Moench v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 2023
5 state decisions
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 Strickland v. Washington · State v. Lopes · Lancaster v. Utah Board of Pardons · Alvarez v. Galetka · Lucero v. Warden of the Utah State Prison
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To determine whether a post conviction petition is frivolous, a trial court need only determine whether the petition contains sufficient facts to state a cause of action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“if it is apparent to the court that any claim has been adjudicated in a prior proceeding, or if any claim in the petition appears frivolous on its face.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“his counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonable professional judgment, thereby prejudicing him.”
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.