Honeycutt v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 2019
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 Spuehler v. State · Smith v. State · Cobbs v. State · Freeman v. State · Frye v. State
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.
“9 120 We have already determined that Parents are not entitled to a jury trial on restitution. We have also noted that Par ents did not seek modification on the ground that the restitution order imposed an undue hardship upon them. Nevertheless, the primary purpose of the restitution statutes is to compensate a victim for his or her actual loss, not to provide a windfall. 10 The legislature in requiring the amount to be determinable by a reasonable certainty sought to prevent windfalls and the use of restitution as additional punishment for a defendant.”
2 later decisions 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.