State v. Yount’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 2015
6 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 State v. Austin · State Ex Rel. Lack v. Melton · State v. Norton · State v. Street · State v. Hammond
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We must presume the legislature was aware of this distinction between forfeiture and judgment when drafting Section 374.770.1, as this distinction is expressly recognized in other statutory sections. See Sections 544.610 and 544.640; see also Rule 33.14. Here the problem is not the forfeiture but a judgment on the forfeiture. Thus, section 374.770.1is not applicable to these facts, since it refers singularly and solely to bond forfeiture. [[Image here]] Here, we shall interpret the language of the statute so as to give effect to the logical intent of the legislature. The obvious intent is to direct the trial court to set aside a forfeiture where the surety can subsequently prove the defendant is incarcerated. The statute is not directed to judgments.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Goodrich
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.