2012 UT App 325 - State v. Skousen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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. “[wle will uphold the trial court's decision [on a motion for directed verdict] if, upon reviewing the evidence and all inferences that can be reasonably drawn from it, we conclude that some evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find that the elements of the crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bossert

2. “State v. Skousen, 2012 UT App 325 , T 6, 290 P.3d 919 (quoting State v. Montoya, 2004 UT 5, 129 , 84 P.8d 1188). When a party challenges the denial of a motion for directed verdict alleging insufficiency of the evidence,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bossert

3. “may deny [the] motion ... if the State has produced 'believable evidence of all the elements of the crime charged.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bossert