Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 814 P.2d 604 - State v. Cayer

State v. Cayer’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently June 2018

13 state decisions

90199120002010decided

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 Katz v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Rakas v. Illinois · Irvin v. Dowd · Texas v. Brown

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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The evidence presented at trial showed that defendant, along with the other three men, barged into [the victim’s] trailer. Defendant remained inside the trailer with [the victim’s friend], while the other three forced [the victim] outside and began beating him. Defendant prevented [the victim’s friend] from going outside to help [the victim] by hitting [him] every time he attempted to get up. A jury could reasonably conclude this conduct by defendant aided his friends in the beating death of [the victim]. .... Additionally, a reasonable jury could infer that defendant had the requisite mental state for the offense. He made no attempt to aid the victim either by seeking help from the other employees at the camp site, or by intervening on the victim’s behalf.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. ““The question whether property seized in plain view of the police may be seized ... must turn on the legality of the intrusion that enables them to perceive and physically seize the property in question.”_ In [State v. Holmes, 774 P.2d 506, 510 (Utah App.1989) ], this court described the three requirements necessary to validate seizure under the plain view doctrine: (1) lawful presence of the officer; (2) evidence in plain view; and (3) evidence that is clearly incriminating.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Every person, acting with the mental state required for the commission of an offense who directly commits the offense, who solicits, requests, commands, encourages, or intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct which constitutes an offense shall be criminally liable as a party for such conduct.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.