State v. Salt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If the court, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense of which the defendant was found guilty and to the history and character of the defendant, concludes it would be unduly harsh to record the conviction as being for that degree of offense established by statute and to sentence the defendant to an alternative normally applicable to that offense, the court may unless otherwise specifically provided by law enter a judgment of conviction for the next lower degree of offense and impose sentence accordingly.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2017 UT App 51 - State v. Ricketts

2. “). ¶13 Affirmed. Because the statutory provisions in effect at the time of Cochran's offense do not differ in any way material to our analysis from those now in effect, we cite to the current version of the Utah Code for convenience. Although the parties did not raise this issue, we wonder whether a district court would be compelled to reduce a defendant's sentence even if all five of the prerequisite conditions were met. The statute uses the term”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2019 UT App 92 - State v. Cochran

3. “[t]he [trial] court did not exceed its discretion when it determined that [the defendant's] clean criminal history and potential job problems did not warrant ... a reduction”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2019 UT App 92 - State v. Cochran