State v. Vigil’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably State v. Irwin (1996), Stephens v. Bonneville Travel, Inc. (1997)
2 federal appellate · 25 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 Lane v. Peterson · Schurtz v. BMW of North America, Inc. · Bonham v. Morgan · State v. Howell · State v. Fontana
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The first alternative rationale relied on in Maestas is clearly inconsistent with ... [State v. Bell, 785 P.2d 390 (Utah 1989), State v. Howell, 649 P.2d 91 (Utah 1982), and State v. Norman, 580 P.2d 237 (Utah 1978) ] and with our holding in the instant case. Thus, that portion of Maestas ... is incorrect. However, we note that Maestas is still good law imsofar as it authorizes prosecution for attempted aggravated murder under the intentional or knowing formulation of section 76-5-202(1) or attempted murder under the intentional or knowing formulation of section 76-5-2083(1)(a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) [A] person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the commission of the offense, he [or she] engages in conduct constituting a substantial step toward commission of the offense. (2) [CJonduct does not constitute a substantial step unless it is strongly corroborative of the actor’s intent to commit the offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[TJo convict a defendant of attempted see-ond degree murder, the prosecution must prove that the defendant had a conscious objective or desire to cause the death of another. - Because the mental state required for depraved indifference homicide falls short of that intent, the crime of attempted depraved indifference homicide does not exist in Utah.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.