2002 UT App 345 - State v. Madsen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

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

1. “14, 57 P.3d 1134 ('Use of the permissive term 'may' plainly indicates that the trial court is not required to continue sentencing to obtain a presentence investigation report.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lindsey · 2016 UT App 151 - State v. Draper-Roberts

2. “[The [district] court may, with the concurrence of the defendant, continue the date for the imposition of sentence for a reasonable period of time for the purpose of obtaining a presentence investigation report....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lindsey · 2011 UT App 27 - State v. Waterfield

3. “[I]f the jury cannot see the defendant’s shackles, there can be no prejudice. See, e.g., United States v. Mayes, 158 F.3d 1215, 1226-27 (11th Cir.1998) (“The restraints in this case were not capable of affecting the jury’s attitude in any way because the district court took great care to ensure that the jury never saw that the appellants were wearing leg irons.”); United States v. Brazel, 102 F.3d 1120, 1158 (11th Cir.1997) (“Defendants, moreover, have not shown a realistic likelihood that they were prejudiced by what was done, the shackles having been screened from view.”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wagner v. State