2005 UT App 348 - State v. Haltom’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 2022
6 state decisions
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. Dean · State v. Larsen · Hall v. Utah State Department of Corrections · State v. Bluff · State v. Colwell
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.
“When interpreting statutes, our primary goal is to evince the true intent and purpose of the [l]egislature. To discover that intent, we look first to the plain language of the statute. When examining the statu: tory language we assume the legislature used each term advisedly and in accordance with its ordinary meaning. [TJhus, the statutory words are read literally, unless such a reading is unreasonably confused or inoperable. Furthermore, we avoid interpretations that will render portions of a statute superfluous or inoperable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A person is guilty of dealing in material harmful to minors when, knowing ... that a person is a minor, ... the person intentionally ... distributes ... to a minor ... any material harmful to minors(.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Butt
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.