Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2018 UTAPP 66 - State v. Ringstad

State v. Ringstad’s Empirical Analysis

2018

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
January 2026
most recently cited

18 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · State v. Dunn · State v. Holgate · State v. Ceballos · Commonwealth v. Chambers

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

  1. “(1) an error exists; (2) the error should have been obvious to the [trial] court; and (3) absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “show the existence of a harmful error that should have been obvious to the district court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “the question is not whether the prosecutor's comments were proper, but whether they were so improper that counsel's only defensible choice was to interrupt those comments with an objection.”
    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.