State v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “presume that the expression of one term should be interpreted as the exclusion of another, and we seek to give effect to omissions in statutory language by presuming all omissions to be purposeful.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Sanders · 2019 UT App 33 - Muddy Boys, Inc. v. Dep't of Commerce

2. “We 'presume that the legislature used each word advisedly and read each term according to its ordinary and accepted meaning.' " (citation omitted) ). A threat of retaliation, or a threat to retaliate, would be a threat to retaliate in the future. If the person making the threat does not intend it to reach the subject of the threat, then it cannot be said that the person made the threat as retaliation. As, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1998). See supra ¶21. When the witness retaliation statute is interpreted in this way, Mr. Trujillo did not make a threat as retaliation against the neighbors. He either made a threat as retaliation against the police, or he made a threat to retaliate against the neighbors in the future. Neither theory was the basis for Mr. Trujillo's conviction in this case. We note that the language of the statute encompasses threats directed against "a witness”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Trujillo

3. “conduct which constitutes the commission of at least three episodes of unlawful activity, which episodes are not isolated, but have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2019 UT App 113 - State v. Squires