State v. Cauble’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2020
8 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 3 Utah 2d 70 - State v. Mitchell · 21 Cal. App. 2d 601 - People v. Brock · State v. Johnson · 79 Cal. App. 612 - People v. Keller · State v. Lack
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Criminal actions shall be tried in the county, district, or precinct where the offense is alleged to have been committed. In determining the proper place of trial, the following provisions shall apply: [[Image here]] (b) When conduct constituting elements of an offense or results that constitute elements, whether the conduct or result constituting elements is in itself unlawful, shall occur in two or more counties, trial of the offense may be held in any of the counties concerned. [[Image here]] (g) When an offense is committed within this state and it cannot be readily determined in which county or district the offense occurred, the following provisions shall be applicable: [[Image here]] (iii) A person who commits theft'may be tried in any county in which he exerts control over the property affected.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Workman
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.