Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2005 ND 25 - State v. Tupa

State v. Tupa’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
states following
December 2022
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently December 2022

21 state decisions

90200520102020decided

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 573 So. 2d 330 - State v. Hawthorne · State v. Ellis · 198 Ill. App. 3d 108 - People v. Hamilton · State v. Thorstad · State v. Kensmoe

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

  1. “A district court abuses its discretion only if it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable or unconscionable manner, if its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination, or if it misinterprets or misapplies the law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““1. Before imposing restitution or reparation as a sentence or condition of probation, the court shall hold a hearing on the matter with notice to the prosecuting attorney and to the defendant as to the nature and amount of restitution. The court, when sentencing a person adjudged guilty of criminal activities that have resulted in pecuniary damages, in addition to any other sentence the court may impose, shall' order that the defendant make restitution to the victim or other recipient as determined by the court, unless the court states on the record, based upon the criteria in this subsection, the reason it does not order restitution or orders only partial restitution.... In determining whether to order restitution, the court shall take into account: “a. The reasonable damages sustained by the victim or victims of the criminal offense, which damages are limited to those directly related to the criminal offense and expenses actually incurred as a direct result of the defendant’s criminal action. ... “b. The ability of the defendant to restore the fruits of the criminal action or to pay monetary reparations, or to otherwise take action to restore the victim’s property.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “While diminution in value remains one of the measures of damages, there are situations where replacement costs will be needed to make a criminal victim whole or, stated differently, to reimburse a victim for reasonable expenses ‘actually incurred.’ For example, if a person has owned a set of dishes for the previous decade, the fair market value of this item would be very small. However, a victim who has these dishes destroyed will have little choice but to procure replacement dishes, which are presumably not readily, or desirably, found in a secondary market. The same can be said of many personal items, such as clothing or certain home furnishings like sofas, mattresses, or bed sheets.”
    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.