2015 UT App 146 - State v. Ludlow’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Cases [like Winters] addressing damages in the context of civil conversion actions are relevant to our analysis because pecuniary damages -in the restitution context are those damages 'which a person could recover in a. .civil action arising out of the facts or events constituting the defendant’s criminal activities.’ ” State v. Ludlow, 2015 UT App 146 , ¶6 n.3, 353 P.3d 179 (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 77 -38a-102(6) (LexisNexis 2012)). 7 . In reaching this conclusion, we note that the State presented no evidence of the engine’s value, leaving the district court to base its determination”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2017 UT App 170 - State v. England · 2016 UT App 144 - State v. Irwin

2. “14 Irwin argues that the trial court exceeded its discretion in determining that restitution should be based on the retail value of the watches rather than their replacement cost. "We will not disturb a trial court's restitution order unless it exceeds that prescribed by law or [the trial court] otherwise abused its discretion. A trial court will be deemed to have abused its discretion only if no reasonable [person] would take the view adopted by the trial court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 UT App 144 - State v. Irwin

3. “In the calculation of ... restitution, the vietim is limited to recovering only 'pecuniary damages.!”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 UT App 144 - State v. Irwin