Nixon v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

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

1. “'First, the nature and extent of the publicity must be considered; second, the difficulty or ease in selecting a jury must be considered along with the amount of prejudice which actually appears during voir dire examination.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. State · Sanchez v. State

2. “Nixon contends the court's order to pay $95 to the Division is not authorized under the restitution statute. In ordering restitution, the trial court's exercise of disceretion is cireumseribed by the statutes authorizing restitution. Aldridge v. State, 956 P.2d 341, 348 (Wyo.1998). Whether the restitution statutes authorize payment to the Division is a question of law, which we review de novo. Witt v. State, 892 P.2d 132, 137 (Wyo.1995). If the trial court's conclusion is in accordance with law, it is affirmed. Id. (citing Parker Land & Cat tle Co. v. Wyoming Game & Fish Comm'n, 845 P.2d 1040, 1042 (Wyo.1993)). Wyo. Stat. Ann. $ 7-9-102 (LEXIS 1999) directs the sentencing court to order payment of restitution to each victim. "Victim" is defined in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-9-101 (a)(v) (LEXIS 1999); (v) "Victim" means a person who has suffered pecuniary damage as a result of a defendant's criminal activities. An insurer which paid any part of a victim's pecuniary damages shall be regarded as the victim only if the insurer has no right of subrogation and the insured has no duty to pay the proceeds of restitution to the insurer. Nixon contends the Division does not qualify as a victim under the restitution statute because it is an insurer with a right of subrogation. Nixon's argument focuses on whether the Division has a right of subrogation. We agree that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-105 (LEXIS 1999) allows subrogation. However, that still leaves the question of whether the Division is a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pinker v. State

3. “leave out of consideration the evidence presented by the unsuccessful party which conflicts with the successful party's evidence, and afford every favorable inference to the successful party's evidence which may be reasonably and fairly drawn from that evidence. Even though it is possible to draw other inferences from the evidence presented, the jury has the responsibility to resolve conflicts in the evidence. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury when we are applying this rule....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ekholm v. State