State v. Brunson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 13 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[ (1) ] intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, [and (2) ] the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hartzell · State v. Hartzell

2. “In any prosecution for burglary, any person who enters or remains unlawfully in a building may be inferred to have acted with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, unless such entering or remaining shall be explained by evidence satisfactory to the trier of fact to have been made without such criminal intent.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Snedden · State v. Cantu

3. “clause is omitted, no reasonable juror could interpret the instruction as anything more than a permissive inference and it would then be permissible whenever, under the facts of the particular case, there is a rational connection between the inferred fact, intent to commit a crime, and its supporting facts, unlawful entry. See Ulster Cy., at 157 [99 S.Ct. at 2224-25]. We can perceive of few, if any, cases in which intent to commit a crime would not have a rational connection to unlawful entry into a building. See State v. Bishop, [ 90 Wash.2d 185, 189 , 580 P.2d 259 (1978) ] (”

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