State v. Jonas’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently February 2022
20 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 Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. · Alimeg, Inc. v. Shlim · State v. Bishop · State v. Copeland
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he evidence and the reasonable inferences which might be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the jury verdict. A jury conviction is reversed for insufficient evidence only when the evidence, so viewed, is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime of which he was convicted.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“THE COURT: All right. I almost hate to ask this question, but I’m obligated to. Have any of you been the victims of a theft? And that, as I’ve indicated to you before what a theft really is, taking property of another with intent to permanently deprive them, or in receiving. Well, we’II take that first. I saw some hands go up in the jury box.... PROSPECTIVE JUROR D. SMITH: Yes, my husband had about |13,000 worth of tools stolen about a year and a half ago which we have never— THE COURT: Did a criminal act result from that — or action? PROSPECTIVE JUROR D. SMITH: No, it was reported to the police, which they didn’t do anything about, and we still have never gotten— THE COURT: They didn’t find it? PROSPECTIVE JUROR D. SMITH: (shook head from side to side) THE COURT: How long ago was that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR D. SMITH: About a year and a half ago. THE COURT: Keeping that incident in mind, as I indicated, there are different parties involved, but sometimes based on our experience we allow that to interfere with our thinking. PROSPECTIVE JUROR D. SMITH: It might be. If it was tools, I might be a little influenced. THE COURT: Well, wait just a minute. Let me ask the questions and you just answer the question. PROSPECTIVE JUROR D. SMITH: All right. THE COURT: Bearing that in mind, do you believe that that incident would make it difficult for you to be fair and impartial, particularly to this Defendant, as well as the people of the state of Utah? PROSPECTIVE JUROR D. SMITH: It's a litt”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Woolley“`will presume that the discretion of the trial court was properly exercised unless the record clearly shows to the contrary.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Morgan
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.