Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2018 ND 217 - State v. Wangstad

State v. Wangstad’s Empirical Analysis

2018

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
September 2025
most recently cited

10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on United States v. Olano · State v. Olander · State v. Erickstad · State v. Carlson · Auman v. People

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

  1. “Even if the defendant meets his burden of establishing obvious error affecting substantial rights, the determination whether to correct the error lies within the discretion of the appellate court, and the court should exercise that discretion only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. An alleged error does not constitute obvious error unless there is a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “To establish obvious error, the defendant has the burden to demonstrate plain error which affected his substantial rights. To constitute obvious error, the error must be a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law. There is no obvious error when an applicable rule of law is not clearly established.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “When considering a challenge to sufficiency of the evidence, this Court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdict to decide whether a reasonable fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    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.