26 Utah 2d 392 - State v. Tapp’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably State v. Cummings (1986), State v. Patience (1997)
2 federal appellate · 43 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Spinelli v. United States · 63 Cal. 2d 740 - In Re Estrada · Morgan v. Devine · State v. Pardon · State v. Mulcare
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The first of these [considerations] is that it is the prerogative of the legislature, expressing the will of the people, to fix the penalties for crimes; and the courts should give effect to the enactment and the effective date thereof as so declared. There are some other fundamental principles engrained in our law which, though not directly controlling on the problem at hand, are generally in harmony with the policy considerations which lead to the conclusion we have reached herein_ [These principles include] the time-honored rules of the criminal law generally favorable to one accused of crime: that in case of doubt or uncertainty as to the degree of crime, [the accused] is entitled to the lesser, and correlated thereto: that as to an alternative between a severe or a lenient punishment, [the accused] is entitled to the latter.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The repeal of a statute does not * * * affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any penalty incurred, or any action or proceeding commenced under or by virtu# of the statute repealed. (Emphasis added [by Utah Supreme Court].)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Sections 1-12 of this Act [which included all the revisions of AS Titles 11 and 12] do not apply to or govern the construction of and punishment for any offense committed before the effective date of this Act or the construction or application of any defense to a prosecution for the offense. An offense shall be construed and punished according to the law existing at the time of the commission of the offense in the same manner as if this Act had not become law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sundberg v. State
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.