Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2003 UT App 88 - State v. Norton

2003 UT App 88 - State v. Norton’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
November 2016
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Kohl · State v. Lusk · State v. Irwin · Cheves v. Williams · State v. Elton

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

  1. “(i) [a]n error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for [King], or phrased differently, our confidence in the verdict is undermined.”
    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.