Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2011 UT App 229 - State v. Epling

2011 UT App 229 - State v. Epling’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

14 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Miller v. California · McKune Warden et al. v. Lile · State v. Bluff · Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv. · State v. Helms

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

  1. “[the fact that the trial court assessed the relevant factors differently than [Bunker] would have liked does not indicate that it exceeded its discretion,”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A court abuses its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences only if no reasonable person would take the view taken by the sentencing court.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Because trial courts are afforded wide latitude in sentencing, a court's sentencing decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
    3 later decisions 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.