State v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably 27 Cal. 4th 537 - Manduley v. Superior Court (2002), State v. Mohi (1995)
40 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 Gault · Dandridge v. Williams · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Bordenkircher v. Hayes · Plyler v. Doe
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in the face of logic, the conclusion is inescapable that the crime of attempted murder requires proof of intent to kill. Therefore, we also hold that attempted felony-murder does not exist as a crime in Utah.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'The general rule is that prosecutors are given broad discretion in determining whether and in what manner to prosecute each case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A juvenile has no right to treatment in the juvenile system or “ ‘to be specially treated as a juvenile delinquent instead of a criminal offender.... [S]uch treatment is entirely a gratuitous creature of the legislature subject to such conditions as the legislature may impose without violating constitutional guarantees.’ ”... [T]he defendant’s assertion that [the court] should apply the strict scrutiny test since the fundamental right of the defendant’s liberty was involved ... [does] not withstand analysis ... because a deprivation of liberty occurs only upon the defendant’s conviction of a crime for which he is criminally responsible, and since there is no constitutional right to youthful offender treatment, a defendant cannot assert a valid claim of denial of liberty if he or she is charged and sentenced as an adult in accordance with the law. [[Image here]] Since the state may rightfully prosecute as adults all juveniles[,] ... a particular defendant suffers no deprivation of liberty because the state exercises this right, notwithstanding the fact that if the state decided not to do so ... a defendant may receive a benefit.”
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.