2016 UT App 1 - State v. Monzon’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
October 2025
most recently cited
11 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Dorszynski v. United States · Wasman v. United States · State v. Sanwick · State v. Clark
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the mitigating evidence that [defendant] believes the district court should have considered was discussed at the first sentencing hearing or was set forth in the [pre-sentence report] ..., we presume that the district court considered that information prior to sentencing”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]s a general rule, Utah courts presume that the [sentencing] court made all the necessary considerations when making a sentencing decision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Coombs“sentencing matrices are advisory and do not create any right or expectation on behalf of the offender.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Vict. Asta
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.