State v. Soto’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
1 district · 66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably In the Interest of Doe (2001), Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. Sullivan (1998)
1 district · 66 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 Gideon v. Wainwright · Palko v. State of Connecticut · Weatherford v. Bursey · Michel v. United States · United States v. Morrison
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he interpretation of a statute ... is a question of law reviewable de novo.” State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai'i 1, 10 , 928 P.2d 843, 852 (1996) (quoting State v. Camara, 81 Hawai'i 324, 329 , 916 P.2d 1225, 1230 (1996) (citations omitted)). See also State v. Toyomura, 80 Hawai'i 8, 18 , 904 P.2d 893, 903 (1995); State v. Higa, 79 Hawai'i 1, 3 , 897 P.2d 928, 930 , reconsideration denied, 79 Hawai'i 341 , 902 P.2d 976 (1995); State v. Nakata, 76 Hawai'i 360, 365 , 878 P.2d 699, 704 , reconsideration denied, 76 Hawai'i 453 , 879 P.2d 558 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1147 , 115 S.Ct. 1095 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1063 (1995).”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage““[a]mbiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity.” [Busic v. United States, 446 U.S. 398, 406 , 100 S.Ct. 1747, 1752-53 , 64 L.Ed.2d 381 (1980).] “This policy of lenity means that the [e]ourt will not interpret a [state] criminal statute so as to increase the penalty that it places on an individual when such an interpretation can be based on no more than a guess as to what [the legislature] intended.” Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6, 15 , 98 S.Ct. 909, 914 , 55 L.Ed.2d 70 (1978).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, despite the evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction, in reviewing the entire record, that a mistake has been committed.”
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.