Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2004 UT App 57 - Moench v. State

2004 UT App 57 - Moench v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
June 2020
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Hill v. Lockhart · State v. Lopes · State v. Visser · State v. Maestas

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

  1. “In order to ensure that defendants have a complete understanding of the charge and of the constitutional rights they are waiving by entering a plea, [the Utah Supreme Court] created rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “not [be] limited to the record of the plea hearing but may look at the surrounding facts and cireumstances including the information [the defendant] received from his ... attorney[ ] before entering the plea.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “a failure to comply with Utah's rule 11 does not in itself amount to a violation of a defendant's rights under either the Utah or the United States Constitution.”
    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.