State v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 76 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Whenever the validity of a verdict is challenged under rule 24.1(c)(3), the court may receive the testimony or affidavit of any witness, including members of the jury, which relates to the conduct of a juror, official of the court, or third person. No testimony or affidavit shall be received which inquires into the subjective motives or mental processes which led a juror to assent or dissent from the verdict.”

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

2. “[T]he facts [do not] establish that the delay was intended to gain a tactical advantage or to harass appellants. Instead, appellants argue only that it is unfair for the State to investigate and gather statements and evidence which they did not or could not do until their indictment; hence, they were afforded a “stale investigation.” Such is clearly not constitutionally violative of due process.”

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

3. “An intervening act is a coincidence when the defendant’s act merely put the victim at a certain place at a certain time, and because the victim was so located it was possible for him to be acted upon by the intervening cause.... By contrast, an intervening act may be said to be a response to the prior actions of the defendant when it involves reaction to the conditions created by the defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McKinnon v. United States