Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2004 UT App 211 - State v. Guzman

2004 UT App 211 - State v. Guzman’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
January 2023
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 2023

7 state decisions

40200420102020decided

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 Neil v. Biggers · Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp. · Modjeski & Masters, Applicant, V · State v. Dunn · State v. Ramirez

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

  1. “a cautionary instruction may be given if the accomplice testimony is uncorroborated and shall be given if the trial judge finds the accomplice testimony self-contradictory, uncertain or improbable”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “alerted the jury to [their] possible motives[s] for testifying with less than total candor.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “was simply not necessary to prompt the jury to question [the] veracity”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.