Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2005 UT 31 - State v. Lovell

State v. Lovell’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
July 2025
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 2025

6 state decisions

30200520102020decided

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 State v. Saunders · State v. Lovell · State v. Ostler · Beaver v. Qwest, Inc. · State v. Price

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

  1. “T9 Defendant pled guilty to one count of aggravated robbery in 1997. Defendant asks us to review the denial of his motion to withdraw, which he filed ten years later. This is far beyond the statutory window for filing a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, and we agree with the district court's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to consider it. T10 Defendant apparently argues that when the district court resentenced him under rule 22(e) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, the thirty-day period for Defendant to withdraw his 1997 guilty plea somehow restarted. Rule 22(e) explains that a "court may correct an illegal sentence, or a sentence imposed in an illegal manner, at any time.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[wle do not discount the heinous cireumstances of Ms. Yost's death by not repeating the details of the crime in this appeal, but we limit our recitation to the ... facts on which the issues of this appeal are centered.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[W]hether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and rule on [these] motion[s] [is a] matter[] of law that we review for correctness without deference to the trial court's rulings.”
    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.