Jordan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 29 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘‘In Bonds v. State, Mart. & Y. 143, 17 Am. Dec. 795 , the trial judge disposed of a plea of present insanity after trial and verdict of guilty; but, where there is any possible doubt upon the question of sanity, we think that in the trial court the issue should be submitted to a jury. “In this court, however, where it is made to appear to the court that the plaintiff in error is probably insane and should not be tried, or judgment against him executed, the court will investigate and determine the question of sanity without a jury, and make such order as the dictates of humanity and the law require in the postponement of trial or judgment. Bonds v. State, Mart. & Y. 143, 17 Am. Dec. 795 ; Green v. State, 88 Tenn. [634] 635, 14 S. W. 489 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ross v. State

2. ““It' is a proceeding preliminary to the trial upon the gnilt or innocence of the defendant, and the only effect it can have on such trial is to postpone it, in-the event the issue is found for the defendant. “It is purely a collateral issue, similar to those involved upon an application for continuance, or the qualification of a talesman when the jury is being impaneled. It is also somewhat analogous to cases where the question of the admission of evidence is presented and tried by the presiding judge, such as the competency of dying declarations and of secondary evidence of the contents of lost documents.” Jordan v. State, supra.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cogburn v. State

3. ““While the insanity of the defendant prevents him from being required to plead, be tried, sentenced, or punished, if existing at the time of such proceedings, yet he is not to be discharged, but kept in custody under proper orders of the court until it shall be ascertained that he has recovered from his infirmity, when the trial shall be had, judgment entered, or sentence executed. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cogburn v. State