State v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 2021
8 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 Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc. · Moore v. Kluthe & Lane Ins. Agency, Inc. · City of Deadwood v. Summit, Inc. · United States of America v. Joseph Emmett Simmonds III · 36 Colo. App. 382 - Keefe v. Bekins Van & Storage Company
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At a restitution hearing, the defendant is entitled to confront witnesses against him, but the rules of evidence and civil burden of proof do not apply. State v. Ruttman, 1999 SD 112, ¶ 3 , 598 N.W.2d 910, 911 (citing State v. Tuttle, 460 N.W.2d 157, 159 (S.D.1990)). Therefore, the reasonably satisfied standard of proof applies in determining restitution. Tuttle, 460 N.W.2d at 160 . Furthermore, a trial court has broad discretion in imposing restitution. State v. Thayer, 2006 SD 40, ¶ 16 , 713 N.W.2d 608, 613 . However, questions of law are reviewed under a de novo standard with no deference given to the trial court’s conclusions. City of Deadwood v. Summit, Inc., 2000 SD 29, ¶ 9 , 607 N.W.2d 22, 25 (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Wingler
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.