Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2009 UT App 231 - State v. Moa

2009 UT App 231 - State v. Moa’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
April 2013
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · State v. Dean · State v. Bluff · State v. Helms · State v. Visser

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. “the defendant understands the nature and elements of the offense to which the plea is entered, that upon trial the prosecution would have the burden of proving each of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the plea is an admission of all those elements”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the gravity and cireumstances of the offenses, the number of victims, and the history, character, and rehabilitative needs of the defendant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the record does not support [the] claim that the [district] court actually relied on either of the prosecutor's statements,”
    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.