Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2016 UT App 238 - State v. Sexton

2016 UT App 238 - State v. Sexton’s Empirical Analysis

2016

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Killpack · State v. Helms · State v. Woodland · 2011 UT App 229 - State v. Epling · 2015 UT App 255 - State v. Bunker

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

  1. “not all aggravating and mitigating factors are equally important, and one factor in mitigation or aggravation may weigh more than several factors on the opposite scale.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “While failure to consider all legally relevant sentencing factors is an abuse of discretion, a sentencing court is not required to weigh all the factors equally.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “no reasonable person would take the view taken by the sentencing court”
    1 later decision 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.